preview

Medical Marijuana Case Study

Good Essays

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Twenty-five states and the capital of the United States, Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana. This poses a problem for employers that have a strict zero tolerance drug policy while abiding by the Americans with Disabilities Act. For example, an employee can be prescribed medical marijuana by their doctor to relieve certain diseases or symptoms such as cancer and migraines. The objective of this paper is to discuss and illustrate the right of an employer to apply their drug policy and not be required to accommodate an employee and/or applicant’s need for medical marijuana. RELEVENT FEDERAL, STATE, & INTERNATIONAL LAWS Within the twenty-five states that legalized marijuana, four of which has legalized …show more content…

Even alcoholism and drug addiction is considered a disability and is protected under the ADA. However, the interpretation of the ADA has become hazy with the use of prescribed medical marijuana for a disability. Similar to state marijuana laws, there are distinct state laws concerning disability, such as the Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Act and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, so a multi-state employer must carefully navigate their company policy to accommodate the ADA and the individual state disability laws. It should be noted that employers are contracted by a Federal agency are required to comply by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 ("Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988", …show more content…

The Pines of Clarkston, Inc., the plaintiff, Jamie Holden, claimed to be wrongfully terminated by the defendant after taking a physical exam and a drug test which revealed Holden tested positive for marijuana. This violated the company’s drug testing policy. It was revealed that Holden was taking medical marijuana for epilepsy. After meeting with the defendants, Holden was informed that she could not perform the job due to her condition and was terminated. The defendant was in violation of the ADA and the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. While Holden did fail the company’s drug test, the defendant wrongfully discriminated against Holden because of her disability. It could be argued that if the defendant claimed to terminate Holden’s employment because of her failed drug test, it would be in their right. However, during the deposition the defendant specifically brought up Holden’s disability and not violating the company’s drug policy as reason to terminate her from the

Get Access