Is Medical Marijuana Use Becoming a Protected Class Under State Laws?
Few topics these days are blazing as brightly as the issue of medical marijuana. In April 2016, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Used to treat an enumerated list of "serious medical conditions" including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and cancer, Pennsylvania lawmakers have emphasized the scientific research supporting the improvements made in patients suffering extreme and debilitating symptoms.
June 22, 2017 at 02:06 PM
6 minute read
Few topics these days are blazing as brightly as the issue of medical marijuana. In April 2016, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Used to treat an enumerated list of “serious medical conditions” including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and cancer, Pennsylvania lawmakers have emphasized the scientific research supporting the improvements made in patients suffering extreme and debilitating symptoms.
Aside from the documented health benefits, and after the state of Colorado raked in a total of $8.76 million in medical marijuana tax revenue in a single year ($200 million total when including tax revenue from the state's reported $1 billion in recreational marijuana sales), it is easy to see the appeal of Pennsylvania's relatively new medical marijuana legislation, known as “Act 16 of 2016.” This past Tuesday, June 20, Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach announced the award of permits to 12 applicants permitting the cultivation and processing of medical marijuana as “a huge day for patients and for the people of Pennsylvania.” After six months, so long as the growers can demonstrate that their facilities are operational, they may proceed to grow medical marijuana. Yes, Pennsylvanians, legalized pot is (finally) here.
The question for employers throughout the commonwealth will be how to draft and implement policies affecting employees who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. In the workplace, states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana are divided into two categories: states where employers have a duty to accommodate and states where the relevant laws are either silent or expressly exempt employers from providing accommodations to medical marijuana users.
This content has been archived.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 AllJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Limited Success in Enforcing Post-Employment Restrictions Against Employees
7 minute readRacial Discrimination Case Against Pep Boys Advances, but $7M Punitives Claim Tossed
3 minute readMen Are Worried, but EEOC Panel Finds Little Evidence to Support #MeToo Backlash Fears
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 2Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
- 3The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
- 4Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 5The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
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