BC Human Rights Tribunal awards $15,000 for an employer’s refusal to interview a Deaf candidate
An interesting decision came out of the BC Human Rights Tribunal in April about discrimination in hiring.[1] The Tribunal found in favour of a Deaf person claiming discrimination in employment, after a potential employer refused to interview them because they were Deaf. The Tribunal ordered $15,000 as compensation for injury to dignity.
We find this case interesting for a few reasons. First, both parties in this case were self-represented, meaning they did not have lawyers representing them. Navigating legal processes and gaining access to justice can be difficult, as there are often barriers on many levels. Particularly for self-represented parties who do not have prior legal training or experience, the complaint process can be stressful and confusing at times. This case demonstrates that even without lawyer involvement, two parties can make their way through the entire human rights tribunal process – all the way to a hearing (held via Zoom) and a decision.
Second, this case was about one occurrence between the parties, which lasted only a few minutes, but still resulted in a substantial injury to dignity award. This case shows that the even a brief interaction can cause serious detrimental effects to a person’s dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and that the Tribunal acknowledges the severity of such an impact. While this is not the first case to make this kind of finding, we hope that cases like this will encourage others who have experienced similar discrimination to file complaints, as well as discourage people from engaging in discriminatory conduct.
Third, previous awards for similar scenarios had injury to dignity awards ranging from $2,000-$5,000, making the $15,000 award in this case a big increase. Historically, injury to dignity awards have been low, with more recent cases reflecting an upward trend in injury to dignity award amounts, and this case seems to follow that trend.
Some examples of previous Tribunal decisions that have similar circumstances to this case, with lower injury to dignity awards include:
- Briltz v. Yaki’s Pizza and Labossie[2] a 2006 decision where a potential employer refused to hire a person who disclosed they had epilepsy. The injury to dignity award in that case was $2,000.
- Khalil v. Woori Education Group,[3] a 2012 decision where a blind person was denied a second job interview when they disclosed their disability, although they were able to do the job. The injury to dignity award in that case was $3,000.
- Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites,[4] a 2012 decision where a person’s cerebral palsy was a factor considered in being denied a job interview. The injury to dignity award in that case was $5,000.
Background Facts
The person who made the complaint (the “Complainant”) is a Deaf person who interviewed for a laser technician job with the owner’s (the “Employer”) business, a beauty salon, in February 2020. She had previous work experience in the beauty and aesthetics industry and knew that such jobs can be performed using non-verbal communication. A vocational counselor the complainant was working with in her job search had notified the Employer in writing that the Complainant is Deaf and had also arranged for an American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreter to attend the interview with her
The interpreter arrived first to the interview, shortly followed by the Complainant. The Employer did not conduct the interview. After a brief exchange, the interpreter and the Complainant left the establishment with the employer refusing to do the interview. The entire interaction lasted a few minutes. The Complainant later filed a human rights complaint against the Employer for discrimination under section 13 of the BC Human Rights Code. There was some dispute about the facts about what precisely happened during that exchange, but the Tribunal found that the Employer had decided the Complainant was unqualified for the job due to being Deaf.
Legal Reasoning
Legal Test for Discrimination
Section 13(1) of the BC Human Rights Code states that a person must not refuse to employ a person, or discriminate against a person regarding employment, because of that person’s disability.
To establish that the Employer had discriminated against her, the Complainant had to prove three elements:
- She had a disability;
- She experienced an adverse impact regarding employment; and
- Her disability was a factor in the adverse impact.[5]
The Complainant is Deaf, and her Deafness is a disability within the meaning of the Code.
The Tribunal determined that the Complainant did experience an adverse impact regarding employment. The Employer did not give the Complainant a chance to show that she was qualified for the position and refused to employ the Complainant. This amounts to an adverse impact regarding employment.
The Tribunal found that upon realising the Complainant was Deaf, the Employer told her she was unqualified for the laser technician position because she would be unable to communicate with clients. The Complainant tried to explain how she could communicate with clients, but the Employer refused to consider her explanation. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Complainant’s Deafness was a factor in the adverse impact she experienced.
In this case, the Tribunal found all three elements of the legal test for discrimination to be met.
No lost wages
Compensation for lost wages may be ordered by the Tribunal in employment-related discrimination cases, depending on the situation. The Tribunal did not award lost wages to the Complainant in this case, because it determined that the Complainant would not have been hired anyway for reasons unrelated to her disability.
The Employer did not end up hiring anyone else to fill the position because the Covid-19 pandemic began shortly after this incident occurred and the company had to stop offering services. Even when the Employer was able to reopen, business was slow, and the Employer did not require nor was able to afford another employee.
Compensation for Injury to Dignity
The purpose of an injury to dignity award is to address the harm caused by human rights violations.[6] Determining the amount of an injury to dignity award depends on the specific facts and circumstances in any given case.
In making an injury to dignity award, the Tribunal considers several factors, including:
- The nature of the discrimination
- The complainant’s social context or vulnerability, and
- The specific effect the discrimination had on the complainant.[7]
In arriving at $15,000 as the appropriate award for this situation, the tribunal considered each of those factors, as outlined below.
Nature of the discrimination
The Tribunal called the Employer’s conduct rash, prejudiced, callous, and insensitive to the effects that her words and actions were likely to have on the Complainant. The Tribunal found the overt nature of the discrimination the Complainant experienced to be serious.
Social context or vulnerability of the Complainant
The Tribunal considered that persons with disabilities have often been excluded from the labour force, and that Deaf persons in particular have been excluded from opportunities available to the hearing population.[8] The Tribunal also commented that, “the ‘disability’ of Deafness is largely, if not entirely, constructed by systemic barriers that operate to exclude and marginalize Deaf people.”[9] As such, the Complainant was highly vulnerable to discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the Employer’s treatment of the Complainant served to reinforce the socially constructed barriers that continue to marginalize the Complainant, and many other Deaf people, and exclude them from employment.
Specific effect of the discrimination on the Complainant
The Tribunal found that the discrimination had a severe and profound psychological and emotional impact on the Complainant. The Employer’s conduct caused her to feel humiliated and resulted in lasting effects to her self-esteem and mental health. She felt devalued as a human being by the Employer’s conduct, as she had been judged solely on the basis of being Deaf.
Read the full decision here: https://www.bchrt.bc.ca/law-library/decisions/recent/2025-bchrt-87/
[1] Shahbakhshi v Melo and another, 2025 BCHRT 87.
[2] Briltz v. Yaki’s Pizza and Labossiere, 2006 BCHRT 245.
[3] Khalil v. Woori Education Group, 2012 BCHRT 186.
[4] Winkelmeyer v. Woodlands Inn and Suites, 2012 BCHRT 312.
[5] Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 at para 33.
[6] Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia (No. 2), 2011 BCHRT 185 at para 260.
[7] Oger v. Whatcott (No. 7), 2019 BCHRT 58 at para 225.
[8] Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624 at paras 56-57.
[9] Braun (by Braun) v. BC Family Hearing Resource Society, 2024 BCHRT 42 at para 50.
