Employers Taken to Court Over Medical Marijuana

(Fall 2017) A Connecticut federal judge handed down a decision in August stating that federal law does not preempt the non-discrimination portion of the state’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA). This mandate prevents an employer from making hiring or firing decisions based on an individual’s legal use of medical marijuana under state law. PUMA allows employers to ban the use of marijuana or being high on the job but barred workplaces from discriminating against a legal medical marijuana patient solely because he or she is authorized by the state to use the drug. Connecticut is not the first state to pass medical marijuana legislation that contains such anti-discrimination safeguards. Arizona, New York, Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maine and Nevada have similar laws, although courts in these states have not had to rule on the matter yet.

In the Connecticut suit, the employer’s defense positioned that PUMA is preempted by three federal laws: the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Even though, to date, cases nationwide concerning the CSA’s preemption of state medical marijuana laws have sided with employers, these situations did not involve statutes containing precise anti-discrimination specifications at the state level. The Connecticut federal judge decided that the defendant’s actions did not constitute a conflict between these three laws and PUMA.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sided with a medical marijuana user in a suit charging her employer with her unlawful firing after a positive drug screening. The employee was told when hired her medical marijuana use would not be an issue, as her physician suggested it to treat a chronic medical condition. However, after one day on the job, human resources fired her because her new-hire drug test indicated marijuana usage. The employer informed her that its policy mirrored federal law (which bans marijuana use) rather than state law (which allows for medical use) in this matter.

In finding for the employee in the Massachusetts case, the court stated that the employer discriminated due to a handicap. Specifically, the employee, with an established medical issue, was fired because of the treatment for the condition. The judge reasoned that the state’s medical marijuana law specifies that patients cannot be refused “any right or privilege” due to their marijuana use for medicinal purposes. This encompasses reasonable accommodation, which would allow for the use of the drug while not at work. However, the decision said that such accommodation did not include on-the-job use. The judge went on to say that federal law banning marijuana does not make its use an unreasonable accommodation under the state’s handicap legislation.

See more Legal & Legislative Updates articles.