The short answer, for now, is no. But let’s look at a couple of recent cases that may demonstrate a growing trend.
In July, the highest state court in Massachusetts ruled that while marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law, an employer who fired an employee for testing positive for marijuana its use may be liable for disability discrimination because she used it to treat her Crohn’s disease.
Massachusetts law provides that a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes shall not be penalized in any manner. Thus, the employer should have either made an exception under its drug testing policy or, at the very least, engaged in the interactive process to determine whether there was any other treatment that would be equally effective and, if there was not, the employer needed to show that making an exception to the drug testing policy would cause it an undue hardship.
This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a case involving Connecticut’s law which prohibits employers from refusing to hire or terminating an employee who is a user of medical marijuana. The employer attempted to argue that federal laws, including the Controlled Substances Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, preempted the state law, but the appellate court disagreed, finding no direct conflict between the laws. In its ruling, the court specifically distinguished Michigan’s medical marijuana law which does not contain any restrictions applicable to employers.
So, unless and until Michigan’s laws concerning marijuana change, whether legalizing it for recreational purposes or expanding the rights of users of medical marijuana, employers should continue to state in their drug testing policies that having a medical marijuana card will not exempt an employee from its drug policy or prevent discharge for testing positive.
- Senior Attorney
An attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr's clients include Fortune 500 companies, local governments ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Labor Law
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Employment Agreement
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Title VII
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Harassment
- Sick Leave
- Regulatory Law
- Workers' Compensation
- Minimum Wage
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Civil Rights
- Non-compete Agreements
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Class Actions
- Emergency Information
- Business Risk Management
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Hostile Work Environment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- The Challenge of Wage Claims Under the Equal Pay Act
- Was the bar for Actionable Federal Discrimination Claims Just Lowered?
- Poor Drafting Leads to Poor Results for Arbitration 'Agreement'
- One, Two, Three Strikes You’re OUT… When Dealing With Attendance Rules!
- Failure To Apply Duties Test Results in Ruling Against Employer in Wage Claim Appeal
- MIOSHA Suspends May 24 Rule, Makes COVID-19 Mitigation Measures Discretionary for Non-Health Care Employers
- ‘VACC To Normal’ Means Back to the Office for Michigan Starting May 24
- Michigan Pushes to Pandemic Finish Line by Promoting Double Vaccine Benefit
- Contractual Limitations Periods and Federal Civil Rights Claims
- Remote Work Still Required Amid Covid-19 Surge in Michigan