A British Columbia car dealership has been found to have violated human rights laws after a manager handed a termination letter to an employee while the man was handcuffed and being detained by police for a mental health evaluation1. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal released a detailed decision on September 9, 2025, ruling that Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. discriminated against former salesperson Reggie Varghese based on a mental disability. The ruling centers on the timing of the dismissal and the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s medical condition at the precise moment they chose to end his employment.
Reggie Varghese began his employment with the Richmond-based dealership on January 27, 2020. Like many new hires in the automotive sales industry, he signed an agreement that included a three-month probationary period. This standard trial phase allowed the employer to assess his suitability for the high-pressure sales environment. For the first month, Mr. Varghese worked to learn the sales processes and interact with customers. However, just over a month into his tenure, he experienced a significant medical crisis that would abruptly end his time with the company and lead to a years-long legal dispute.
On March 4, 2020, Mr. Varghese arrived at work in a state of severe distress. He testified later that a close friend was dying in the hospital and that his request to take the day off to be with her had been denied by the dealership. While on the showroom floor, his behavior caused alarm among his colleagues. The General Sales Manager at the time, Eric Knight, described an incident where Mr. Varghese shook a colleague who was holding a cup of hot water and subsequently grabbed Mr. Knight’s arm. Mr. Knight noted that Mr. Varghese was sweating profusely and not making sense during a conversation in his office. The situation escalated to the point where management called paramedics, and Mr. Varghese was involuntarily detained by the RCMP under the Mental Health Act.
Mr. Varghese was hospitalized for two days following the incident at the dealership. He discharged himself against medical advice on March 6, 2020, and attempted to return to work the following Monday, March 9. When he arrived at the dealership, he met with Mr. Knight and Carlyn Porteous, the Director for Fixed Operations. During this meeting, the managers observed that Mr. Varghese still appeared unwell. Ms. Porteous testified that he seemed agitated, nervous, and distressed, leading her to feel concerned for safety. The managers utilized emergency contact numbers listed on hospital discharge papers that Mr. Varghese had provided to them.
Once again, the RCMP attended the dealership to intervene. The officers determined that Mr. Varghese needed to be apprehended under the Mental Health Act for his own safety and the safety of others. As the officers placed Mr. Varghese in handcuffs to transport him to the hospital, Mr. Knight made the decision to move forward with the termination of his employment immediately. While Mr. Varghese was physically restrained by police, Mr. Knight handed him a termination letter. Following this event, Mr. Varghese was hospitalized involuntarily for a second time and was subsequently diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder.
Mr. Varghese filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging that his termination was discriminatory. He argued that his employment was ended because of his mental disability. Under human rights legislation, an employee does not need to prove that their disability was the sole reason for their termination, but merely that it was a factor in the decision. The dealership denied the allegations, arguing that the decision to fire Mr. Varghese had nothing to do with his mental health and had actually been made days before the medical episodes occurred.
The dealership’s defense relied heavily on the assertion that Mr. Varghese was a poor performing employee who failed to meet the standards of his probation. Mr. Knight testified that he had decided to fire Mr. Varghese on March 2, 2020, two days before the first mental health incident took place. According to Mr. Knight, the dealership expected new salespeople to memorize a specific sales process. He claimed that during a morning meeting on March 2, Mr. Varghese failed to recite this process correctly, which was the final catalyst for the decision to terminate him. Mr. Knight stated that although the decision was made on that Monday, the management team was too busy with month-end administrative work to inform Mr. Varghese immediately, intending to do so later in the week.
To support this timeline, the dealership introduced handwritten notes that Mr. Knight claimed were created during one-on-one performance reviews with Mr. Varghese. These notes purportedly documented warnings given to the employee about his need to memorize the sales script or face termination. However, the Tribunal found significant issues with the credibility of this evidence. During the hearing, Mr. Knight provided inconsistent testimony regarding these notes. Initially, he stated that he would write the notes and hand them directly to Mr. Varghese without keeping a copy. Later, under cross-examination, he contradicted himself by stating the notes were part of the permanent employment file kept by the company. The Tribunal noted that if Mr. Knight had given the only copies to Mr. Varghese as claimed, the dealership would not have been able to produce them for the hearing.
The Tribunal also noted the absence of corroborating evidence for the dealership’s version of events. Mr. Knight testified that another sales manager, Danny Bolina, was present for the March 2 decision to terminate Mr. Varghese. However, the dealership did not call Mr. Bolina as a witness to verify that this conversation actually happened before the mental health crisis began. Furthermore, there were no emails, text messages, or official termination documents created on March 2 or March 3 to prove that the decision pre-dated the mental health episodes.
Tribunal Member Theressa Etmanski, who presided over the hearing, found that the timeline of events created a strong presumption of discrimination. The undisputed facts were that Mr. Varghese experienced a mental health crisis at work on March 4, returned on March 9 appearing unwell, and was fired immediately while in the custody of police. The Tribunal found that even if there were performance concerns, the urgency with which Mr. Knight acted on March 9 was telling. Rather than waiting for the employee to receive medical attention or stabilize, the manager chose to hand-deliver a termination letter to a man in handcuffs.
The Tribunal ruled that the dealership had a clear perception that Mr. Varghese was suffering from a disability, even if they did not know the specific diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder at the time. Both managers admitted in their testimony that they were deeply concerned by his behavior, describing him as sweating, not making sense, and agitated. By calling mental health emergency lines and the police, they demonstrated an awareness that his behavior was medical in nature.
In her decision, Tribunal Member Etmanski rejected the employer’s argument that the termination was purely performance-based. She found that the dealership failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation that could overcome the compelling evidence regarding the timing of the dismissal. The decision noted that the termination letter was dated March 9, the day of the second incident, rather than an earlier date, suggesting it was drafted in response to the events of that day. The Tribunal concluded that the mental disability was a factor in the adverse treatment Mr. Varghese received.
Legal precedents in British Columbia establish that an employer cannot treat an employee adversely due to a real or perceived disability. The law requires that a disability not play any part in the decision to terminate employment. Because the Tribunal found that the dealership reacted to the symptoms of Mr. Varghese’s condition by accelerating his removal from the workplace, the complaint was justified under Section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
Regarding the remedy for the discrimination, Mr. Varghese took an unusual approach. Unlike many complainants in similar cases, he did not seek financial compensation for lost wages, expenses, or injury to dignity. Instead, he requested only a legal declaration that his rights had been violated and an order that the dealership cease such behavior in the future.
The Tribunal granted the requested orders. It declared that Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. discriminated against Mr. Varghese based on his mental disability. The Tribunal also issued a cease and desist order, requiring the dealership to refrain from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Human Rights Code in the future.
Tribunal Member Etmanski noted in the decision that while Mr. Varghese did not ask for monetary damages, the evidence showed his dignity was injured by the conduct of the dealership. The decision highlights the vulnerabilities employees face during probationary periods and clarifies that probation does not exempt employers from their obligations under human rights legislation. The ruling stands as a formal acknowledgment of the discrimination Mr. Varghese endured during his brief and tumultuous employment.
Read about other human rights cases here.
