Source: https://www.drugtestlawadvisor.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:44:30+00:00

Document:
Jeremiah Chance worked for Kraft Heinz as a Yard Equipment Operator. He suffered from various back problems and obtained a medical marijuana card in 2016. In August 2016, Chance was involved in an accident at work and was required to undergo a drug test. He tested positive for marijuana and informed the Medical Review Officer that he used medical marijuana. His employment was terminated.
Chance initially filed a complaint in which he alleged discrimination due to medical marijuana use and OSHA retaliation. He subsequently amended his complaint, alleging (i) violations of the Delaware Medical Marijuana Act (DMMA); (ii) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (iii) violation of the Delaware Whistleblowers’ Protection Act; and, (iv) common law wrongful termination. Kraft Heinz moved to dismiss all of the claims.
Kraft Heinz argued that federal law preempts the DMMA because under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is illegal. The Court, however, found persuasive the opinions of the courts in Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, 273 F. Supp.3d 326 (D. Conn. 2017) and Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corp., 2017 R.I. Super. LEXIS 88 (R.I. Super. May 23, 2017). Those Connecticut and Rhode Island cases held that there was no conflict between the federal Controlled Substances Act and the state medical marijuana laws at issue. (Our blog posts discussing those cases can be found here, here, and here).
The Chance Court started its analysis of the preemption issue by noting that the Controlled Substances Act “does not make it illegal to employ someone who uses marijuana, nor does it purport to regulate employment matters within this context.” The Court stated that the anti-discrimination provisions of the DMMA do not pose an obstacle to the objectives of Congress and do not require employers to participate in illegal activity. Rather, the DMMA only prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based upon medical marijuana use. The Court therefore rejected the employer’s preemption argument.
Moreover, the Court held that a private right of action is implied in the DMMA, because the DMMA provides no specific remedy for qualifying marijuana patients who are terminated from employment for failing drug tests. Without an implied private right of action, the Court reasoned, the anti-discrimination provision of the DMMA would be devoid of purpose within the broader context of the statute. Chance therefore was permitted to proceed with his claim alleging that his termination violated the DMMA.
The Court dismissed Chance’s ADA claim because he did not initially allege that he was terminated due to a disability; rather, he alleged only that he was terminated due to his medical marijuana use.
This case is the third in the last two years to hold that the federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt state medical marijuana anti-discrimination provisions. Employers who operate in states where the medical marijuana law prohibits employment discrimination should take note and should consider revising policies that purport to rely on marijuana’s classification as an illegal drug under federal law.
In a memorandum to Regional Administrators dated October 11, 2018, OSHA clarified the agency’s position as to whether certain types of drug testing would be considered violations of 29 C.F.R. §1904.35(b)(1)(iv). That regulation prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness. As we discussed in an earlier blog post, OSHA previously published commentary stating that employers could not use “drug testing (or the threat of drug testing) as a form of adverse action against employees who report injuries or illnesses.” Instead, employers were limited to drug testing when there was a “reasonable possibility” that drugs or alcohol contributed to the accident or injury.
The memorandum concluded by saying that to the extent any other interpretive documents could be construed as inconsistent with the position articulated here, this memorandum supersedes them.
OSHA’s memorandum is welcome news for employers because it is now clear that employers need not analyze whether there was a “reasonable possibility” that drugs or alcohol could have contributed to an accident. Instead, broad post-accident drug and alcohol testing is permitted (subject to applicable laws that may have different requirements) as long as all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the accident are tested.
A police officer who disclosed his Adderall prescription to his supervisor was unable to state a claim for discrimination based on an actual or perceived disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Pennsylvania Human Rights Act. Jeannot v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, et al, Case No. 18-1977 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2018).
The officer’s lawsuit stemmed from his termination following a reasonable suspicion drug test. The officer, who worked the night shift, filled an Adderall prescription at a drugstore during his shift on the night in question. He claimed that his partner secretly recorded him during a response to a domestic disturbance call, and was away from the patrol car speaking on the phone for a significant amount of time. The officer subsequently was required to return to police headquarters. When he arrived, he was told to go home early.
The following day, the officer’s supervisor visited his home and informed the officer that he was under investigation and that he was required to undergo reasonable suspicion drug testing. The housing authority terminated the officer’s employment within a few weeks of the test. The officer claimed that he disclosed his Adderall prescription to his supervisor during his employment, and that he had a note from his doctor stating that his use of Adderall would not impact his ability to perform his job duties.
The lawsuit alleged that the housing authority discriminated against the officer based on his disability, regarded him as disabled, failed to accommodate his disability, and retaliated against him. The housing authority moved to dismiss the officer’s ADA and PHRA claims for failure to state a claim.
The “lynch pin” of the officer’s “regarded as” claim, was that his supervisor had knowledge of his Adderall prescription. The court first highlighted several cases holding that an employer’s knowledge of an impairment alone is insufficient to establish a “regarded as” claim. The court reasoned, “If an employer’s knowledge of an impairment is insufficient on its own to demonstrate it regarded the employee as disabled, then surely knowledge an employee is taking medication is insufficient as well. To conclude otherwise would allow any individual who provides notice to his employer that he is taking a particular medication, without any additional factual allegations, to establish a prima facie case of regarded as disability discrimination.” Because the employee failed to allege any facts regarding how the officer’s supervisors reacted to or perceived him, the court dismissed the “regarded as” claim without prejudice.
The court also determined that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish the existence of an actual disability. Although the officer claimed he was prescribed Adderall to help him maintain focus and concentration, he did not affirmatively state that he had any problems with focus or concentration. The court also held that the officer’s failure to allege a disability was fatal to his failure to accommodate claim. The officer’s retaliation failed, because he did not allege any facts to show that he engaged in protected activity prior to his termination.
A federal court in Connecticut has held that refusing to hire a medical marijuana user who tested positive on a pre-employment drug test violates the state’s medical marijuana law. The Court granted summary judgment to the applicant on her claim for employment discrimination but declined to award her attorneys’ fees or punitive damages. The Court also dismissed her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Health & Rehab. Ctr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150453 (D. Conn. Sept. 5, 2018).
Plaintiff Katelin Noffsinger accepted a job offer from Bride Brook, which was contingent on passing a pre-employment drug test. Noffsinger advised that she was a registered qualifying patient who has used medical marijuana since 2015, when she began using it to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. When the drug test came back positive for marijuana, she was not hired because the employer followed federal law holding that marijuana is illegal.
Bride Brook made a motion to dismiss. As discussed in our earlier blog post about this case, the Court held that: (1) PUMA provides a private right of action to aggrieved medical marijuana patients; and, (2) federal law does not preempt PUMA’s prohibition on employers’ firing or refusing to hire qualified medical marijuana patients, even if they test positive on an employment-related drug test. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Health & Rehab. Ctr., 273 F.Supp.3d 326 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2017). After that decision, the case proceeded with discovery, and then both parties moved for summary judgment.
Bride Brook argued that PUMA provides for an exception from the anti-discrimination provision when “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding.” It argued that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act barred it from hiring Noffsinger because that law prohibits federal contractors from allowing employees to use illegal drugs. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. The Court rejected that argument because the Drug-Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing and does not regulate employees who use illegal drugs outside of work while off-duty.
Similarly, the Court rejected the argument that hiring Noffsinger would violate the False Claims Act, holding that it would not defraud the federal government to hire an employee who uses medical marijuana outside of work while off-duty.
Bride Brook also argued that it did not violate PUMA because it did not discriminate against Noffsinger based on her status as a medical marijuana user, but rather, it relied on the positive drug test result. The Court dismissed this argument because it would render a medical marijuana user’s protection under the statute a nullity.
While the Court held that the employer had engaged in employment discrimination, it declined to award Noffsinger attorneys’ fees or punitive damages because those types of damages are not expressly recoverable under PUMA. Additionally, the Court dismissed the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the employer did not engage in “unreasonable conduct” and Noffsinger chose to give notice to her prior employer before she had advised Bride Brook of her medical marijuana use.
Noffsinger illustrates that employers (including federal contractors) should not rely solely on federal law or their status as a federal contractor when making employment decisions with regard to applicants and employees who use medical marijuana. Courts in Connecticut and certain other states will enforce state law discrimination prohibitions with regard to medical marijuana use.
Employers in Connecticut and elsewhere should consider the marijuana laws affecting their workplaces now, before an issue arises, and adjust their policies as necessary.
Plaintiff Cotto was employed as a forklift operator and injured himself by hitting his head on the roof of the forklift. His employer required him to take and pass a post-accident drug test as a condition of employment. He told his employer that he could not pass the drug test because he takes several medically-prescribed drugs, including medical marijuana as well as narcotics for pain management. The employer told him that they could not allow him to continue working there unless he tested negative for marijuana, and he remained on indefinite suspension as a consequence of not satisfying this condition of employment. Cotto argued that this requirement constituted disability discrimination in violation of the NJCUMMA and the NJLAD. In effect, Cotto sought the “reasonable accommodation” of requesting the employer to waive the requirement that he pass a drug test for marijuana. The employer moved to dismiss his claims.
The Court began its analysis by stating that marijuana continues to be illegal under federal law. New Jersey enacted the NJCUMMA in 2010 for the purpose of protecting medical marijuana patients from criminal prosecution and other civil penalties. However, the NJCUMMA explicitly provides that “nothing in this act shall be construed to require . . . an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” The Court further noted that the NJCUMMA is “less expansive than several other states” because there are no employment protections for medical marijuana users in the statute. Additionally, the Court stated that “most courts have concluded that the decriminalization of medical marijuana does not shield employees from adverse employment actions,” citing court decisions in California, Colorado, Michigan and New Mexico.
Turning to the NJLAD, the Court predicted that the New Jersey judiciary would conclude that the NJLAD does not require an employer to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana with a drug test waiver. As a result, Cotto’s complaint failed to state a claim and his lawsuit was dismissed.
All applicants and employees working in any New Jersey Department of Human Services (“DHS”) funded, licensed or regulated program serving adults with developmental disabilities are subject to mandatory drug testing, effective May 1, 2018. Under the Stephen Komninos’ Law, New Jersey Public Law 2017, Chapter 238, covered employers are required to administer pre-employment, random and reasonable suspicion drug testing. The law does not require alcohol testing.
The law applies to “direct care staff members.” That term is not limited to those employees with direct care job responsibilities; it also is defined to include those “who may come into contact with individuals with developmental disabilities during the course of such employment.” In addition, DHS interprets the law to apply to volunteers as well.
According to guidance provided by DHS, DHS has partnered with Energetix Corp. (the “Vendor”) as the vendor to facilitate all aspects of its drug testing program and to conduct the drug testing. Drug testing will consist of urine screening for controlled dangerous substances including marijuana, cocaine, opiates (heroin, codeine, morphine and prescribed semi-synthetic opioids), amphetamines/methamphetamines and phencyclidine (PCP). The costs of all drug tests will be covered by DHS.
Pre-employment: All applicants must undergo pre-employment drug testing and receive a negative test result. A refusal to test means that the applicant will be removed from consideration for hire. As of June 15, 2018, an applicant or volunteer may not commence employment until the test result is received by the employer. For employees who were hired on or after May 1, 2018 and who were tested through the employer’s own drug testing vendor, the employee must be re-tested using the DHS vendor.
Random: At least once per year, an employer must randomly drug test one or more current direct care staff members. The law provides that the person who is responsible for the “overall operation of the program, facility or living arrangement” has the discretion to determine the total number of direct care staff members who will be required to undergo random drug testing. However, DHS guidance provides that “it has been determined that 10% of a provider’s direct care employees will be tested annually.” Random samples will be identified quarterly through the Vendor and employers will need to ensure they update their direct care staff rosters to provide to the Vendor quarterly.
“For Cause” or Reasonable Suspicion: Reasonable suspicion drug testing must be conducted if the direct care staff member’s immediate supervisor has reasonable suspicion to believe that the staff member is illegally using a controlled dangerous substance. Reasonable suspicion must be “[b]ased on the staff member’s visible impairment or professional misconduct which relates adversely to patient care and safety.” Once a supervisor determines that reasonable suspicion exists, he or she is required to report this information to his or her immediate supervisor “in a form and manner specified by the commissioner, and, if the latter concurs that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a direct care staff member is illegally using a controlled dangerous substance, that supervisor shall notify the person who is responsible for the overall operation of the program, facility, or living arrangement, and request written approval therefrom to order the direct care staff member to undergo” a drug test. An employee cannot be drug tested “for cause” without the written approval of the person who is responsible for the overall operation of the program, facility, or living arrangement. The employer must maintain documentation for the basis of the test, including the written approval of the person responsible for the overall operation of the program, facility or living arrangement.
Employees who refuse to test must be terminated. If an employee tests positive, the employer has the discretion to terminate the employee or refer the employee for treatment. Treatment services are not the responsibility of DHS.
DHS Guidance provides that before any applicant is denied employment for a positive test, or any employee is terminated for a positive test, the applicant or employee will have an opportunity to speak with the Vendor’s medical review officer to discuss any relevant, legitimate medical explanations for the positive result, such as a current prescription. Applicants and employees will have 24 hours to respond to the medical review officer with their explanation or documentation before they are considered a “non-contact positive.” For employment purposes, the “non-contact positive” is considered a positive result and the employer then will take the applicable employment action.
The New Jersey Office of Licensing will check for documentation that the law was implemented by covered employers.
Employers covered by this law must inform all direct care staff members about the law’s new drug testing requirements. To do so, covered employers should create a written policy or revise existing drug testing policies to ensure that they comply with DHS’s new mandates for drug testing direct care staff, applicants and volunteers. Moreover, covered employers should train all supervisors on how to recognize and report behavior that qualifies as “reasonable suspicion” warranting a “for cause” drug test.
Oklahoma became the 30th state to pass a medical marijuana law after voters approved it on June 26, 2018. The law gives broad discretion to physicians in prescribing medical marijuana, which should make it fairly easy to obtain. Additionally, the law restricts employers from taking action against applicants or employees solely based on their status as a medical marijuana license holder or due to a positive drug test result. The law takes effect on July 26, 2018.
The law will be implemented quickly. It gives the Oklahoma State Department of Health until July 26, 2018 to make available on its website applications for medical marijuana licenses/caregiver licenses, dispensary licenses, commercial grower licenses, and processing licenses. It also requires the Oklahoma State Department of Health to establish by August 25, 2018, a regulatory office to receive these applications. Applications are to be approved/denied within fourteen days of receipt. A medical marijuana license will be valid for two years. Temporary licenses, which are valid for 30 days, may also be requested.
Oklahoma’s governor, Mary Fallin, stated after the election results were clear that the new law “is written so loosely that it opens the door for basically recreational marijuana.” Prior to the election, Gov. Fallin stated that she planned on calling a special session of the legislature if voters passed the measure.
Medical marijuana license holders will be permitted to legally possess up to three ounces of marijuana on their person and up to eight ounces in their residence (as well as specified amounts of edible marijuana, concentrated marijuana, and plants). The law permits the issuance of a license to applicants 18 years or older, but also has provisions to allow applicants under the age of 18 to obtain a license.
Employers may take action against a holder of a medical marijuana license holder if the holders uses or possesses marijuana while in the holder’s place of employment or during the hours of employment. Employers may not take action against the holder of a medical marijuana license solely based upon the status of an employee as a medical marijuana license holder or the results of a drug test showing positive for marijuana or its components [emphasis added].
Employers in Oklahoma should consult with counsel regarding the implications of this new medical marijuana law and should update their drug testing policies.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved June 25, 2018 a prescription drug made from marijuana for the first time. The drug, known as Epidiolex, is approved to treat seizures in two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, in patients two years of age and older.
Epidiolex is made from cannabidiol, or CBD, which is a chemical component of the Cannabis sativa plant, more commonly known as marijuana. CBD does not cause intoxication or euphoria that comes with the use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is the main psychoactive ingredient of marijuana.
Before sales of Epidiolex commence, the Drug Enforcement Administration must formally reclassify CBD into a different category so that it may be used for medical purposes. That decision is expected within 90 days.
It is possible that the FDA’s approval of this drug could be a first step toward the eventual reclassification of marijuana. In 2016, the DEA denied petitions to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug, because the research did not yet support a reclassification. At that time, the DEA stated that the current medical and scientific evidence demonstrated that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (Click here for our blog post on that decision). However, the DEA also stated that it supported legitimate medical and scientific research concerning the use of marijuana and that if the scientific understanding about marijuana changed, the DEA’s decision also could change.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §1904
 v. 
 v. 
 v.