Employment Law: Johnson v. Big Tree Logging Case Analysis

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