Imagine a scenario straight out of a modern workplace comedy: an individual receives a conditional job offer for a non-safety-sensitive position, contingent upon passing a drug test. Being upfront, he discloses his state-certified use of medical marijuana to manage anxiety, depression, and ADHD, assuring the employer that his usage won’t affect job performance or safety. However, after a positive THC test, the employer rescinds the offer, citing safety concerns. Feeling wronged, the individual sues under two Pennsylvania laws.
The Court’s Verdict: A Tale of Two Laws
-
Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (MMA): The court allowed the claim under the MMA to proceed, highlighting that the statute protects individuals not just from discrimination based on their status as medical marijuana cardholders, but also from adverse actions based solely on lawful use. The court noted, “The MMA would be quite toothless if it only protected an employee’s ability to possess a medical marijuana card, rather than the employee’s ability to take the prescription medication that the card authorizes the individual to use.”
-
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA): Conversely, the court dismissed the disability discrimination claim under the PHRA with prejudice. Since marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate its use, even if prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. The court indicated it would have reached the same outcome under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Why This Matters to Employers
This ruling serves as a clarifying beacon for employers: you cannot take adverse action solely because someone legally uses medical marijuana—at least under Pennsylvania’s MMA. However, it also underscores the limitations of state-level protections, especially when federal law enters the mix.
Three Key Takeaways for Employers
-
Understand Varying State Protections: Laws governing medical marijuana use vary significantly from state to state. In some jurisdictions, cardholder status is protected; in others, it’s not. Multi-state employers must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices align with each applicable state law.
-
Ground Safety Concerns in Job-Specific Evidence: Broad or speculative safety concerns won’t suffice—especially in states with strong employee protections. If you’re citing safety risks, they should be specific, evidence-based, and clearly connected to the essential functions of the role.
-
Review Your Drug Testing and Accommodation Practices: Update policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization handles disclosures of medical marijuana use, particularly during the hiring process.
Final Puff of Insight
This decision is a reminder that medical marijuana laws are evolving, and employers would be wise to stay informed. State law may protect off-duty, off-premises use—but federal law still complicates disability accommodations. Employers should approach these situations with clarity, consistency, and a case-specific analysis grounded in the actual job duties and risks.
