Accommodating the medical use of marijuana
Please seek independent legal counsel before implementing any policies, procedures, or disciplinary actions.
Marijuana use, its manufacture, and legalization in the United States have become a fiery issue.
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, and Rhode Island also have similar laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of medical marijuana status. 2017), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the employer should have least engaged in the interactive process to determine whether an employee’s use of marijuana could potentially have been accommodated. These decisions represent a tremendous shift from past precedent.
Courts have also begun to recognize an employer’s duty to accommodate under such state laws. The employee had Crohn’s disease and told her employer about her need to use medicinal marijuana to treat her condition. May 23, 2017), a Rhode Island court held that the state’s medical marijuana statute is violated when an employer refuses to hire an applicant because of his or her medical marijuana use, explicitly rejecting an employer’s argument that the applicant was not a qualified individual because her use of marijuana was illegal under federal law. Courts in California, Oregon and Colorado — some of the forerunners in the movement to legalize marijuana — have previously held that employers do not have a duty to accommodate medical marijuana use, even under state law.
The trial court dismissed the NJLAD claim, relying primarily on the CUMMA’s statement that “nothing in this act shall be construed to require .
Marijuana has been listed as an illegal Schedule I drug under federal law since Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 (CSA).
The federal government has classified them as illegal drugs due to the high potential for abuse and the lack of safety for use in medical treatment.
For instance, in New York, a certified medical marijuana patient must be deemed as “having a ‘disability’ under the state’s human rights law.” In addition, in Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, and Nevada, employers may not take an adverse employment action based on an individual’s status as a cardholder unless not doing so would violate federal laws or regulations or cause an employer to lose a monetary or license-related benefit under federal law or regulations.The plaintiff claimed that he only used medical marijuana at night, after work, to treat symptoms of his cancer. It would be ironic indeed if the [CUMMA] limited the [NJLAD] to permit an employer’s termination of a cancer patient’s employment by discriminating without compassion.” The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in this case will provide employers with further guidance regarding employees’ legal use of medical marijuana.The plaintiff claimed that the CUMMA permitted his use of prescribed marijuana, and the NJLAD required his employer to accommodate that prescription use. an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” N. Until that decision is issued, and unless the New Jersey Supreme Court reverses the Appellate Division’s decision, employers should be wary of any employment actions that treat medical marijuana users differently than employees using other legally prescribed medication.It is unclear what impact this new policy will have on state efforts to legalize marijuana, but the immediate results suggest that little will change.Just hours after Sessions issued the new memo, the Vermont House of Representatives voted in favor of the full legalization of recreational marijuana use.