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.
- Of Counsel
An of counsel 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 has an ever-growing practice in Alternative Dispute ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Minimum Wage
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Agreement
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Regulatory Law
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Workplace Harassment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Justice
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Medicare Issues
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Unemployment Benefits
- Sexual Harassment
- Class Actions
- Civil Rights
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Court Delays Ruling on Fate of Michigan’s Paid Sick Leave, Minimum Wage Laws Until February 2023
- Michigan Supreme Court Affirms State’s Civil Right Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
- DOJ Issues Guidance on ADA, Opioid Crisis Issues
- Congress Passes Law, With Retroactive Effect, to Invalidate Forced Arbitration Provisions at the Employee’s Election
- U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Implementation of Vaccine Requirement for Large Businesses
- Contractual Limitations Periods STILL Alive and Well... on job Applications!
- Federal Appellate Court Takes Brakes Off COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Employers: Hang on for Another Spin Around the Vaccine Mandate Carousel
- Stray Comments can Lead to Employer Liability
- President Biden's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Face Uncertain Future