Courts Recognizing Employment Discrimination Causes of Action for Medical Marijuana Patients
As more states legalize marijuana for medical use, employers are asking themselves whether they need to hire or continue to employ those who have a prescription for marijuana and test positive for marijuana.
October 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM
5 minute read
As more states legalize marijuana for medical use, employers are asking themselves whether they need to hire or continue to employ those who have a prescription for marijuana and test positive for marijuana. Courts in at least six states where medical marijuana is legal have issued decisions upholding an employer's right to enforce their zero tolerance policies. However, in 2017, courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut ruled that employers may not discriminate against employees for using medical marijuana. These decisions may be the start of a trend among courts that recognize causes of action for employees who use medical marijuana.
Rhode Island
In Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics, No. PC-2014-5680 (R.I. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), the Rhode Island Superior Court held that an employer could not refuse to hire a medical marijuana cardholder, even if the employee would not pass the employer's mandatory pre-employment drug test. When Christine Callaghan applied for a paid internship, she disclosed that she had a medical marijuana prescription, and that she would not pass the employer's drug test. The employer rescinded the job offer because Callaghan admitted that she could not comply with the company's drug-free workplace policy.
The court held that the employer's refusal to hire Callaghan violated Rhode Island's medical marijuana statute, which explicitly prohibits employers from refusing to employ a person “solely because of his status as a [medical marijuana] cardholder.” The court also held that Callaghan's disability discrimination claim survived because she could demonstrate discrimination against a class of disabled people—“those people with disabilities best treated by medical marijuana.” The employer will be appealing to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Massachusetts
In Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, 477 Mass. 456, 78 N.E.3d 37 (2017), the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that an employee who was terminated for testing positive for marijuana as a result of a lawful prescription may assert a claim of handicap discrimination under state law. Cristina Barbuto told her supervisor that she would test positive for marijuana because she had a prescription for medical marijuana. When the test results came back, the company terminated Barbuto pursuant to its drug-free policy.
The court held that even if an employer has a drug policy prohibiting the use of such medication, the employer still has a duty to engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine whether there are “equally effective medical alternatives” whose use would not be in violation of its drug policy. If there are no alternatives, the employer must show that the employee's use of the medication would cause the company undue hardship.
The employer also argued it terminated Barbuto for failing a drug test all employees are required to pass, and not because of her handicap. The court rejected the employer's argument holding that such a policy would effectively deny a handicapped employee the opportunity for a reasonable accommodation, and therefore would amount to discrimination.
Connecticut
In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating, No. 3:16-CV-01938(JAM), 2017 WL 3401260 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2017), the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut held that federal law does not preclude the enforcement of Connecticut's law, which explicitly prohibits employers from firing or refusing to hire an employee who is a “qualified patient for medical marijuana use.”
Florida
In November 2016, Florida approved Amendment 2, which legalized medical marijuana for individuals with certain “debilitating medical conditions.” On June 23, Gov. Rick Scott signed into law a bill which implemented Amendment 2. The bill provides limited guidance for employers stating that:
“This section does not limit the ability of an employer to establish, continue, or enforce a drug-free workplace program or policy. This section does not require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marijuana. This section does not create a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination.”
In reaching their decisions, the Rhode Island and Massachusetts courts relied in part on the language of the state statutes, noting that because they make clear that employers are not required to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in the workplace, the statutes implicitly recognize that the off-site use of medical marijuana might be a permissible accommodation. Florida maintains a similar provision regarding on-site use, stating that employers do not have to permit employees to use marijuana “in any workplace.”
Florida law does not expressly address whether employers may have to accommodate medical marijuana use outside of the workplace, provided that the employee is not working “under the influence” of marijuana—a term that has not been defined by the legislature. Moreover, there are non-euphoric strains of medical marijuana. Thus, the question of whether an individual who tests positive for marijuana is “impaired” or “under the influence” is also of concern. Florida courts have yet to weigh in on any of these issues.
Until the legislature clarifies the law or Florida or federal courts interpreting it weigh in, Florida employers are at risk for employment decisions (and could be the test case). Thus, Florida employers should monitor changes in the law, and consult with legal counsel when considering workplace policies and practices.
Employers must also consider that even if they are not required to accommodate use of medical marijuana, the underlying medical condition requiring the prescription, may still require employers to engage in the interactive process and provide some other type of reasonable accommodation.
Ilanit Fischler is an associate in Fisher Phillips' Fort Lauderdale office. She represents employers in a broad range of matters relating to the workplace, including claims of unlawful discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour and contract disputes before federal and state courts, and administrative agencies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250