Employment Law: Johnson v. Big Tree Logging Case Analysis

This document provides an analysis of the Johnson v. Big Tree Logging case in the context of employment law. It discusses the violation of s. 13(1) of the Code prohibition on handicap discrimination when Mr. Johnson was fired after he failed to stop using Marijuana at work.

Running Head: EMPLOYMENT LAW 1
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

EMPLOYMENT LAW 2
Decision:
In Johnson v. Big Tree Logging, the company is accused of violating s. 13(1) of the
Code prohibition on handicap discrimination when Mr. Johnson was fired after he failed to
stop using Marijuana at work. It is evident that the plaintiff had a doctor’s approval to use
Marijuana if necessary in order to treat his pain and nausea. Mr. Johnson had informed his
employer (Big Tree Logging) about his condition and further explained that he never used
Marijuana publicly or during work. Therefore, in this case, there is prima facie in this case as
Mr. Johnson qualified under the characteristics protected under the code.
It can be argued that the doctor's recommendation to use and possess medical
marijuana is as lawful as the possession and use of other prescription drugs. Therefore,
allowing certain exceptions to the employer's drug policy for an employee who has been
allowed to use medical marijuana serves as a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s
disability (De Campos Velho Martel, 2011). If Big Tree Logging has a policy prohibiting the
use of medical marijuana, the court can determine that it is the employer’s responsibility to
engage the employees in an interactive process in order to determine whether marijuana is an
equally effective alternative medication as prescribed by the doctor. As result, it can be
determined that terminating Mr. Johnson for the violation of such drug policies without
establishing a proper interactive framework “automatically denies a handicapped employee a
chance of proper accommodation and thus is properly recognised as discrimination. “Under s.
13(1) of the Code.
While Big Tree Logging decision allowed Mr. Johnson to pursue claims of handicap
discrimination, it can be noted that the court never guarantees the plaintiff ultimately succeed
in proving discrimination. The decision technically places the burden on Big Tree Logging
Ltd to prove that the use of marijuana by the plaintiff would cause undue hardship to the

EMPLOYMENT LAW 3
organisation or place a lot of risk to public safety in order to justify their lack of
accommodation to the employee (Ellis, & Watson, 2012). However, Big Tree Logging Ltd
has the opportunity to offer evidence on the ground that the use of medical marijuana by the
plaintiff impose an undue hardship on the normal operations of the business. For instance, it
can be noted that “Big Tree Logging Ltd may prove that the constant use of Marijuana would
lower the performance of the employer or pose a higher and insignificant risk to other
employees as well as the public.” (Sullivan, 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion Mr. Johnson was unfairly terminated from his job. A prima facie in this
case covers the allegations made by Mr. Johnson, and since they are believed, they are
sufficiently used to justify his position. Notably, s. 13(1) of the Code allowed equal treatment
of all employees clearly contains provisions of anti-discrimination (Oliphant,
2012).Consequently, this case can be used as a lead in an effort to justify the position of
employees or employers while determining reasonable accommodation under the laws of
disability discrimination.

EMPLOYMENT LAW 4
References
De Campos Velho Martel, L. (2011). Reasonable accommodation: the new concept from an
inclusive constitutional perspective. SUR-Int'l J. on Hum Rts., 14, 85.
Ellis, E., & Watson, P. (2012). EU anti-discrimination law. Oxford University Press.
Oliphant, B. (2012). Prima Facie Discrimination: Is Tranchemontagne Consistent with the
Supreme Court of Canada's Human Rights Code Jurisprudence. JL & Equal., 9, 33.
Sullivan, C. A. (2012). Tortifying Employment Discrimination. BUL Rev., 92, 1431.