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.
Comments
Add a comment
Topics
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Wage & Hour
- Minimum Wage
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- COVID-19
- Noncompete Agreements
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Earned Sick Time
- Civil Rights
- Contract Employees
- Regulatory Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Title VII
- Tax Law
- OSHA Issues
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Federal Trade Commission
- Unemployment Benefits
- Contracts
- Transgender Issues
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Public Education
- Cannabis
- Department of Justice
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Medicare Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
- At Will Employment
- Employment Agreement
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Liability
Recent Updates
- Is Your Business Ready for Pay Transparency Laws?
- Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split in Reverse Discrimination Cases
- Michigan Legislature Avoids Chaos by Amending Earned Sick Time Act Just Prior to Deadline
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements
- Michigan Employers Can Legally Resist Union Organizing Efforts
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision Reinstates Previous Versions of Wage Laws