Opinion ID: 808782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Policy Interpretation

Text: For similar reasons, we dismiss Plaintiff’s argument that Plaintiff’s discharge was contrary to public policy. The district court held that the MMMA did not regulate private employment but that the statute could potentially provide a defense to criminal prosecution or any other adverse action by the state. The district court concluded, therefore, that private employees are not protected from disciplinary action as a result of their use of medical marijuana, nor are private employers required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace. In rendering its decision, the district court explained that Michigan voters could not have intended such consequences and that accepting Plaintiff’s argument would create a new category of protected employees, which would “mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan.” Casias, 764 F.Supp. 2d at 922. We agree with the district court that accepting Plaintiff’s public policy interpretation could potentially prohibit any Michigan business from issuing any disciplinary action against a qualifying patient who uses marijuana in accordance with the Act. Such a broad extension of Michigan law would be at odds with the reasonable expectation that such a far-reaching revision of Michigan law would be expressly enacted. Such a broad extension would also run counter to other Michigan statutes that No. 11-1227 Casias v. Wal-Mart, et al. Page 12 clearly and expressly impose duties on private employers when the duties imposed fundamentally affect the employment relationship. See, e.g., Michigan Elliott-Civil Rights Act of 1976, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1) (“An employers shall not . . . discriminate against an individual with respect to employment . . . ”); Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act of 1976, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1102(1) (“[A]n employer shall not . . . discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual . . . because of a disability . . . ”); and Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 4008.1002 (“This act shall apply to all places of employment in the state . . . . ”). The MMMA does not include any such language nor does it confer this responsibility upon private employers. We therefore reject Plaintiff’s policy argument.1