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)
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Title VII
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Discrimination
- National Labor Relations Act
- Employment Agreement
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Sick Leave
- Hostile Work Environment
- Class Actions
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Lessons Learned – Part Three – The Oral Contract
- Lessons Learned – Part Two – Punitive Damages
- Lessons Learned Series - Part One - No-fault Attendance Policies
- DOL Gets Granular on Rounding of Employees’ Time
- Federal Appellate Court Finds Potential USERRA Violations
- Employers Must File EEO-1 Survey with Pay Data by Sept. 30
- Adopt and Amend? Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Paid Medical Leave, Improved Workforce Opportunity Acts
- New ADA Case Is Great For Employers
- Michigan Legislature Challenges its Own Lame Duck Amendments to Paid Sick Time, Minimum Wage Rate Laws
- Supreme Court Rules EEOC Charge not Jurisdictional Requirement for Bringing Civil Rights Claims in Federal Court