Court Opinion

ID: 9961717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 16:12:42.54967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:43.305454
License: Public Domain

J-S08019-24

                                   2024 PA Super 76

  MICHAEL KOPINETZ                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  WASTE MANAGEMENT AND                         :   No. 1344 MDA 2023
  PROCESSORS, INC.                             :

               Appeal from the Order Entered August 24, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at
                            No(s): S-409-2023

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

DISSENTING OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                  FILED: APRIL 19, 2024

       Appellant Michael Kopinetz filed a civil complaint against his employer,

Waste Management and Processors, Inc. (“WMP”), alleging a single count-

violation of the Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”), 35 P.S. § 1023.1.101 et seq.

I would affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s complaint with

prejudice.

       It is undisputed Appellant made the following factual averments in his

complaint: Appellant was a lawful user of medical marijuana under the

Commonwealth’s Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”); however, he did not

inform WMP that he was legally permitted to use medical marijuana. WMP

randomly selected Appellant for a drug test. Still, Appellant did not inform

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08019-24

WMP that he was legally permitted to use medical marijuana, and he did not

disclose this fact to the third-party administrator. Appellant tested positive

for marijuana, and WPM called him into a disciplinary meeting. Upon entering

the meeting, Appellant immediately blurted out he was issued a valid card

under the MMA. WMP suspended Appellant, indicated it needed to look into

its drug policy, and one week later, WMP fired Appellant.

      The trial court, indicating it was taking these facts as true, granted

WMP’s preliminary objections and dismissed Appellant’s complaint with

prejudice. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/24/23, at 3. The trial court concluded

Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the

MMA. Specifically, the trial court indicated:

             The [MMA] states an employer cannot discharge an
      employee solely upon the basis of his or her status as an individual
      certified to use medical marijuana. It is undisputed that
      [Appellant] was suspended and then terminated from work due to
      using marijuana and having it show up on a positive drug
      screening. [Appellant] was not selected for a drug test based
      upon his certification as a medical marijuana user because it is
      undisputed that [WMP] was unaware of his status until after the
      positive drug test. [Appellant] was not scheduled for a disciplinary
      hearing [with WMP] because of his status but because he tested
      positive for marijuana. As [WMP] was unaware of [Appellant’s]
      medical marijuana status, [WMP] was unable to discriminate
      against [Appellant] based upon his status. Instead, [Appellant]
      had a positive drug test due to random screening, he never
      disclosed prior to the disciplinary meeting that he had a certified
      medical marijuana card, and he was terminated based upon his
      positive drug test.
             The [MMA] specifically does not limit [WMP’s] ability to
      discipline [Appellant] or any other employee for being under the
      influence of medical marijuana. There is no dispute that [WMP]
      was unaware of [Appellant’s] status until after the positive drug
      screen at the disciplinary meeting for the positive drug test.

                                     -2-
J-S08019-24

      Taking the facts in the light most favorable to [Appellant], there
      is no cause of action under the MMA.           As such, [WMP’s]
      preliminary objections [were properly] sustained.
Id. at 3-4.

      Contrary to the Majority, I conclude the trial court’s rationale is sound.

Simply put, the fact WMP didn’t immediately fire Appellant (before he blurted

out that he carried a valid card under the MMA) does not create a factual

dispute about whether WMP fired Appellant for a valid reason (i.e., the positive

drug test). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s

complaint with prejudice, and, thus, respectfully dissent.

                                      -3-