B.C. Pharmacist Wins Tribunal Case Over Discrimination for Opioid Addiction Recovery

A British Columbia pharmacist has won a partial victory in a human rights complaint after he was initially barred from practicing due to his use of opioid replacement medication. The pharmacist voluntarily quit his job in 2015 because of addiction issues and was prescribed Suboxone in 2016. Suboxone helps reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms for opioid users.

When the pharmacist tried to return to work in 2017, he underwent a medical examination by Dr. Mandy Manak. She concluded he was unfit for a safety-sensitive role, which includes handling opioids, as long as he continued taking Suboxone.

The pharmacist filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, arguing that Dr. Manak and the College of Pharmacists of B.C. discriminated against him based on his disability related to opioid addiction. The tribunal did not name the pharmacist in its decision.

After seeking a second opinion from Dr. Evan Wood, an addictions specialist, the pharmacist found full-time work again. The tribunal found that while Dr. Manak’s decision was based on her medical opinion, some of her comments were discriminatory. She has been ordered to pay the pharmacist over $8,100 for these comments, including $7,500 for harm to his dignity.

The tribunal highlighted that Dr. Manak’s comments suggested suspicion about the pharmacist’s fitness for work, financial management, and lifestyle choices, based on negative stereotypes about people with substance use disorders. The pharmacists’ addiction began after he was prescribed opioids for pain treatment in 2009. He struggled with addiction and sought treatment after diverting medication from the pharmacy.

The pharmacist reported that Suboxone significantly improved his life and helped him feel positive about his recovery. During Dr. Manak’s assessment, he felt shocked and hurt by some comments, such as comparing his potential return to work to being a “kid in a candy store” surrounded by drugs.

The tribunal found that Dr. Manak’s skepticism about his ability to live off his savings while unemployed implied that she suspected him of drug dealing. Although some allegations against her were dismissed, the tribunal acknowledged the pharmacist’s sincere belief that he faced discrimination.