In the past seven months, the number of dispensary visits made by medical marijuana patients each week in Pennsylvania has increased by upwards of 70%. The foregoing statistic should hardly come as a surprise with many of us experiencing the quarantine-induced anxiety of a COVID-struck world. With anxiety being one of the most cited reasons for needing treatment, about 230,000 Pennsylvanians are now registered and have been issued cards that allow them to buy medical marijuana. But what happens to those 230,000 Pennsylvanians when they begin to return to work and to those who already have? Although the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act bars employers from taking adverse action against employees who can legally purchase medical marijuana, there is no such protection for those who decide to actually use it. Fortunately, Pennsylvania courts may be on their way to clarifying how the seemingly conflicting sections of the Medical Marijuana Act can operate in harmony following the recent decision of Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, 2:20-cv-01621 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2020)

Shortly following the fourth anniversary of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act or MMA (also sometimes referred to as Act 16), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found in favor of an employee who asserted that there is an implied private right of action under the law's employment discrimination section. In Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, hospital security analyst Donna Hudnell was prescribed medical marijuana to ease the chronic back pain that limited her ability to perform manual tasks, walk and sleep. Following an accident that further exacerbated her injuries, Hudnell requested a leave of absence and underwent spinal surgery. After Hudnell's medical leave ended, Thomas Jefferson required her to take a drug test before returning to work. When Hudnell's drug test returned positive for marijuana, she was terminated from employment. Following her termination, Hudnell filed suit against Thomas Jefferson under the MMA's Section 2031(b)(1) which bars employers from discriminating against employees "solely on the basis of such employee's status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana." Thomas Jefferson moved to dismiss Hudnell's suit, asserting that the only remedy for employees under the act is to seek relief from the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The court disagreed with Thomas Jefferson's argument, however, finding that an anti-discrimination provision with no private right of action would have no practical effect.