In a recent court ruling from a state court in New York, the employer’s summary judgment motion was denied in an employment discrimination case related to an employee’s medical marijuana use.
The facts are pretty similar to other marijuana cases: the employer terminated the employee (now plaintiff) after she tested positive for marijuana following a random drug test. Where it gets potentially complicated for employers is what happened between the positive test and termination decision. During this time period, the plaintiff became a certified marijuana patient using the drug to treat her inflammatory bowel disease. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed the employer committed discrimination against her on the basis of this disability citing the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and New York Public Health Law §3369 (i.e., New York’s state medical marijuana law).
On the other hand, the employer argued that she was a not a member of a protected class as her termination arose from a violation of its drug policy and use of marijuana which occurred before her medical marijuana certification. Further, the employer contended she could not demonstrate any adverse employment action occurred that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court rejected several arguments made by the employer including that the plaintiff’s medical marijuana status is not a disability under the NYCHRL. The court also found that the employer’s workplace drug policy and practices it claimed to follow did not always align.
Next, the court turned to the requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s known disability under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Importantly, the plaintiff was certified as a medical marijuana user at the time of termination and thus the employer had notice of her disability. The court determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the employer engaged in a good faith interactive process. Finally, the court noted there was also an issue of fact as to whether accommodating medical marijuana use would lead an employer to violate the federal Drug Free Workplace Act. Thus, the case continues.
Although this opinion is not binding, employers are encouraged to review this case and its potential implications with qualified legal counsel. This should include reviewing drug workplace policies and commonly followed practices to ensure the two are in alignment.
The facts are pretty similar to other marijuana cases: the employer terminated the employee (now plaintiff) after she tested positive for marijuana following a random drug test. Where it gets potentially complicated for employers is what happened between the positive test and termination decision. During this time period, the plaintiff became a certified marijuana patient using the drug to treat her inflammatory bowel disease. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed the employer committed discrimination against her on the basis of this disability citing the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and New York Public Health Law §3369 (i.e., New York’s state medical marijuana law).
On the other hand, the employer argued that she was a not a member of a protected class as her termination arose from a violation of its drug policy and use of marijuana which occurred before her medical marijuana certification. Further, the employer contended she could not demonstrate any adverse employment action occurred that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court rejected several arguments made by the employer including that the plaintiff’s medical marijuana status is not a disability under the NYCHRL. The court also found that the employer’s workplace drug policy and practices it claimed to follow did not always align.
Next, the court turned to the requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s known disability under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Importantly, the plaintiff was certified as a medical marijuana user at the time of termination and thus the employer had notice of her disability. The court determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the employer engaged in a good faith interactive process. Finally, the court noted there was also an issue of fact as to whether accommodating medical marijuana use would lead an employer to violate the federal Drug Free Workplace Act. Thus, the case continues.
Although this opinion is not binding, employers are encouraged to review this case and its potential implications with qualified legal counsel. This should include reviewing drug workplace policies and commonly followed practices to ensure the two are in alignment.