Today, Massachusetts started retail sales of marijuana at two locations. Perhaps no location is closer to the population centers of Connecticut than Northampton — just 30 miles up the road from Enfield.  It’s the first store east of the Mississippi River.

And lest you think that this is a Massachusetts-only affair, you need only watch the news reports from today to understand that there are plenty of Connecticut residents lining up seeking to avoid the restrictions in place in the Constitution State.   And Governor-Elect Lamont has indicated he’s in favor of it. 

This is going to cause headaches and some choices for employers in Connecticut.

Small amounts of marijuana have been de-criminalized in Connecticut but recreational use and possession is still prohibited. Moreover, employers are still free to discipline employees for recreational use on the job or even off.

But Connecticut has, for several years now, permitted medical marijuana users (who have registered with the state) to have some limited job protections.  On-the-job marijuana use can still be prohibited as well as showing up under the influence.

The City of Waterbury recently announced a policy that testing positive for any amount of marijuana may subject employees to discipline.  As a news article notes, that policy is likely to be challenged in arbitration and the courts.  

So what can a private employer do when it drug tests employees in Connecticut and the results show up as “positive” for marijuana? Well, employers are going to first want to know if the employee is a medical marijuana patient, in which case further inquiries may be needed.  Otherwise, the employer may have the ability to still discipline or terminate that employee’s employment.

Beyond the “Can We Fire…” question, the newer question is going to be “Should We Fire….”

With legal sales just miles away from employers here, the line as to what should be permitted or not gets, if you permit the pun, hazier and hazier.  No doubt, some employers are going to try to draw lines in the sand and say that any drug use is not permitted — particularly if there are additional legal obligations that they need to follow. But some others may have a more permissive attitude and treat marijuana use as they do alcohol use — it’s fine so long as it doesn’t impact work and so long as it isn’t done at work.

The start of retail sales in Massachusetts is not the end of the story here; Connecticut may very well start to reconsider its own laws now that one New England state has taken the plunge. Regardless, employers should continue to talk with their counsel to navigate this ever-changing area of law.

One of the benefits of writing a blog as long as I have is that you get to track the progress of a law or legal development over a number of years.

It was back in 2012, for example, that I first provided a comprehensive summary of a new medical marijuana bill that was making it’s way through the legislature.

And I was quick to note that the law had enough questions attached to it that employers would be wise to spent a late night or two studying all of the quirks.

Now, years later, we have the first case to look deeply at the statute. And for employers, the answers are becoming clearer.

My colleague, Chris Engler, recently recapped the case in a post on my firm’s sister blog.

The plaintiff in the case had applied for a job with a health and rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff ultimately received a job offer, subject to completing a background check and a drug screen. Prior to the drug screen, the plaintiff informed the company that she was a qualifying patient who used medical marijuana to treat her PTSD. Nevertheless, when her drug screen came back positive, the company revoked the job offer on the day before she was to begin work. Based on these facts, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff….

In rejecting the employer’s defenses in the new decision, the court addressed various important issues regarding [the law’s] non-discrimination provision. First, the court clarified that [the law] protects both an individual’s status as a qualifying patient of medical marijuana and that individual’s actual use of medical marijuana. However, the court pointed out that employers can still discipline employees who are under the influence at work.

The case can be downloaded here.  

As more people apply for cards to use medical marijuana, employers would be wise to understand the rules of the road before rejecting job applicants who test positive for marijuana on a drug screen.

Labor Day has come and gone. Summer is over.  Can we all stop listening to Despacito now. (Please?)

But it’s time to look at a decision that came out during the dog days of summer that might have been overlooked.  A recent federal district court case (Noffsinger v. SSN Niantic Operating Co. LLC, download here) has answered the question of whether Connecticut’s medical marijuana laws were preempted by federal law.

The decision held that Connecticut employees who have received approval from the state agency to use medical marijuana outside of work cannot be fired just because they test positive for marijuana during a drug screening.  In doing so, the court held that employees and job applicants can sue based on a termination or a rescinded job offer.

As my colleague wrote for my firm’s alert:

Unlike the laws of other states permitting residents to be prescribed medical marijuana, Connecticut’s statute expressly makes it unlawful to refuse to hire or to discharge an employee solely because of the individual’s status as a qualifying patient, or for testing positive in a drug screening as a result of using medical marijuana within the protections of the statute. However, Connecticut does not protect such individuals if they are found to be using or are under the influence of medical marijuana during working hours.

The court analyzed federal drug laws and determined that they do not address the issue of employment and do not make it unlawful to employ a medical marijuana user. As a result, even though federal law prohibits possession or use of marijuana, those restrictions do not apply to someone properly using medical marijuana under state law.

The decision follows one from Massachusetts that we previously recapped here.

In prior posts, I’ve talked about the difficulties for employers trying to navigate this still-developing area of law.  Employers should proceed carefully under such circumstances and ensure compliance with the state’s medical marijuana laws that prohibits firing employees solely because of the individual’s status as a qualifying medical marijuana patient.

If an employee is under the influence of marijuana during working hours, that may afford employers the opportunity to take decisive employment action but other circumstances may not be so clear.

Consulting with your legal counsel on this changing area of law is advisable for the foreseeable future while more court decisions define the parameters of acceptable action.

While the relaunch of the blog has been delayed a bit more (I swear it’s coming soon), it’s time to have another post in the interim. My colleague Gary Starr is back with an interesting decision from the state next door — Massachusetts. As some Connecticut employers cross state lines (and marijuana cases continue to arise), the case is a reminder that the law continues to evolve in unexpected ways.

Many states have approved the use of medical marijuana, despite the fact that the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.  As a result there is a tension between state rights to use medical marijuana and federal law prohibiting its possession.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had an opportunity to determine how to balance the rights of an employee who had been prescribed and was taking medical marijuana for Crohn’s Disease versus the employer’s interest in complying with federal law and maintaining a drug free work place.  The Court found that the employee had sufficiently alleged that she was a qualified individual with a disability who was entitled to a reasonable accommodation related to use of medical marijuana.

As a result, her firing after testing positive could be challenged and she could pursue a disability discrimination claim under state law.

As part of the hiring process, a new employee was required to take a drug test.  She immediately explained to her supervisor that she suffered from Crohn’s disease and she had been prescribed and was using medical marijuana which was improving her appetite and allowing her to stabilize her weight.  She said that she did not take it before work or during working hours, but that if tested, she would test positive.  After being tested and getting a positive result, the human resource administrator called and fired her.  When the employee tried to explain the she had a prescription, the administrator told her that the company follows federal law, not state law.

The employee ultimately sued in state court claiming that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and that the company had failed to accommodate her disability.

The lower court had dismissed the case, but the highest Massachusetts court concluded that the employee had sufficiently alleged that she had a disability, that she was qualified for the position, and that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation.  As a result, the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The high court, however, also made clear that the employer could still win, but the employer must show that the accommodation was not reasonable and/or caused an undue burden.  The court noted that the employee could not come to work intoxicated, nor could the employee engage in tasks that could pose a risk to the public.

It also noted that if the employer was subject to federal laws related to a drug free work place or similar obligations, then the accommodation could be found unreasonable.

In Massachusetts, employers must not simply apply a drug free work environment policy, but must look at each situation to determine whether the employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.  In states that have adopted medical marijuana statutes — like Connecticut — employers must decide whether the employee has a disability, how to handle a request for an accommodation, and whether there is a compelling reason to deny the accommodation based on undue hardship.

It is also critically important to meet with and discuss the situation with the employee to determine whether there is an alternative to the use of medical marijuana and to review how the job is structured to see if the employee can do the essential functions without violating company policies or impairing the company’s business operation.  It is also important to determine the scope of the medical marijuana statute to determine whether employees have additional employment rights under state statutes.

In states where an employee has been prescribed medical marijuana, employers may not be able to fire an employee who has simply failed a drug test.  More questions must be asked before firing someone who tests positive for marijuana.

Many states have approved the use of medical marijuana, despite the fact that the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.  As a result there is a tension between state rights to use medical marijuana and federal law prohibiting its possession.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had an opportunity to determine how to balance the rights of an employee who had been prescribed and was taking medical marijuana for Crohn’s Disease versus the employer’s interest in complying with federal law and maintaining a drug free work place.  The Court found that the employee had sufficiently alleged that she was a qualified individual with a disability who was entitled to a reasonable accommodation related to use of medical marijuana.  As a result, her firing after testing positive could be challenged and she could pursue a disability discrimination claim under state law.

As part of the hiring process, a new employee was required to take a drug test.  She immediately explained to her supervisor that she suffered from Crohn’s disease and she had been prescribed and was using medical marijuana which was improving her appetite and allowing her to stabilize her weight.  She said that she did not take it before work or during working hours, but that if tested, she would test positive.  After being tested and getting a positive result, the human resource administrator called and fired her.  When the employee tried to explain the she had a prescription, the administrator told her that the company follows federal law, not state law.

The employee ultimately sued in state court claiming that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and that the company had failed to accommodate her disability. Continue Reading Employer’s Defense Goes Up In Smoke

pottYou might think that smoking pot on the job as a state employee would be justifiable grounds to get you fired.

A no-brainer, right?

(Let’s save a discussion for eating brownies and swearing at your cat for another blog post.)

After all, even the Connecticut Supreme Court is stating that the “statutory, regulatory and decisional law of Connecticut evinces an explicit and well-defined public policy against the recreational use of marijuana, particularly in the workplace.”

So why is the result of today’s Connecticut Supreme Court decision (in State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent) that a pot-smoking employee gets his job back?

Well, the answer is based on a few facts that I think tipped the decision of the court and that are important to understand about the case.  (And for more background, the CT Mirror released a post today too.)

First off, the court was not reviewing the underlying decision to fire the employee. Rather, it was reviewing an arbitration decision that had reinstated the employee but with a number of sanctions and conditions, including imposing an unpaid suspension, a last-chance status, and random drug testing.  As I’ve noted before, Connecticut courts will review public policy and a number of factors including whether the employee is “incorrigible”.

Put more simply, courts do not like reversing arbitration decisions, even if those decisions are flawed. (See Brady, Tom.)

And that leads to the next factor: here there was a 15 year, relatively low-level employee with a clean record.  His union argued that he was “dealing with serious personal struggles” and believed that “smoking marijuana helped to alleviate stress and anxiety”.   The court thought that the employee’s past history was worth consideration.  And, it should be noted, the court’s decision was unanimous.

Third, I think the court was reviewing whether an employee who smoked pot COULD be terminated versus MUST be terminated. And on that issue —  namely whether public policy dictated an employee be fired for smoking pot — the court said public policy wasn’t definitive.  Rather, the court found that an array of responses may be appropriate.

So, what does this case mean? First off, it does NOT mean that private employers can’t fire an at-will employee for smoking pot. In fact, the above-language from the court suggests that such terminations are going to be upheld by the courts in most instances.

And, for public employers, it also does not mean that all terminations of drug-using employees are going to be invalid either.  An arbitrator could find the employee’s termination justified in other instances based on the circumstances or the type of position that the employee held (such as a teacher or bus driver, one could imagine).

Rather, the decision means that arbitrators will have some breathing room in reviewing the facts of a situation and fashioning a solution that may be less than a termination in some instances.

For lawyers, the concurrence by Justice Espinosa is worth reviewing; she would have the court revisit its decision that set forth the standards for the court to review in such instances.

With all the talk about the state’s implementation of medical marijuana laws, it’s easy to wonder what impact those laws will have on terminating employees who use marijuana on the job.

One recent Superior Court decision gave a pretty clear answer for state employees: None.  In other words, for employers: Fire Away.

That, of course, simplifies the decision and the result — employers should still exercise caution when disciplining employees for drug use to understand the facts and circumstances — but the court’s decision is yet another affirmation that the statestillhas a strong public policy against the use of marijuana, at least for its employees.

The case, State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, arises from the State’s challenge to an arbitration award reinstating an employee who was terminated for using marijuana while on the job.  The State contended that the award should be vacated on public policy grounds.

The Superior Court agreed with the State because it violates the state’s well established public policy on illegal drug use while on state duty.

The union argued that the award must be confirmed because the State is “currently implementing the legalization of medical marijuana.”  The court rejected that argument pretty simply by stating that even if that’s the case, there is “nothing in the records [to] indicate that grievant was prescribed marijuana.

Regardless, as I said back in 2012:

  • Employers MAY continue to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including marijuana, at work.
  • Employers MAY continue to discipline employees for being under the influence of intoxicating substances at work.

It remains to be seen whether other lower courts will follow this path and whether the appellate courts in Connecticut will confirm this logic. But for now, this decision from the Superior Court ought to make employers breathe just a little easier on that point.

 

The news this week that Connecticut has given its approval to four medical marijuana growers in Simsbury, West Haven, Portland, and Watertown, inches the state that much closer to full implementation of the medical marijuana law that was passed in 2012.

The state also reported that over 1600 individuals in Connecticut have been certified by the state to receive medical marijuana.  That number is expected to grow once production begins in earnest.

Add to that news, the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington and employers now have a whole new area of law to familiarize themselves with.

It would be easy to just write some puns on the matter (and who can resist it in the headline) but it’s not such a laughing matter to employers struggling to figure out what the rules of the road are.

I previously talked about what is and is not covered in Connecticut’s medical marijuana laws in a post back in 2012.  At the time, I noted that there were five important takeaways:

  • Employers may not refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize or threaten an employee based solely on such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.
  • Employers may discriminate if required by federal funding or contracting provisions.
  • Employers MAY continue to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including marijuana, at work.
  • Employers MAY continue to discipline employees for being under the influence of intoxicating substances at work.
  • But employers MAY NOT presume that a drug test result that is positive for marijuana means that the employee used at work or was under the influence at work.

 The Connecticut Law Tribune published an interesting column from my former colleagues this week talking about some hypothetical situations that may arise.  As the column notes, a bit of a conundrum still exists for employers.

While it is clear under [state law] that an employer may terminate or discipline an employee who reports to work impaired on account of his/her medical marijuana use, the law does not address how employers are to treat employees … who use marijuana during non-work hours, but will inevitably fail routine drug tests administered pursuant to a drug-free workplace policy.

If the employer terminates [the employee] for violating its policy, it risks liability if she proves she was not under the influence at work. On the other hand, if it does not terminate …, the employer risks liability should [the employee] report to work under the influence and injure herself or others.

Another novel issue that is arising? Suppose your employee is on a business trip in Colorado.  After a sales meeting, on the way back to his hotel, the employee legally purchases and then consumes some Rocky Mountain marijuana.  Can you discipline the employee for engaging in a legal activity while on “company business”?

As long as we have disparate state laws on the subject, we’re not going to get clear cut answers.  For employers, be sure to stay up to date on the developments and talk with your legal counsel about the implications for your business now that we are on the outskirts of implementation.

It’s been nearly two months since Connecticut’s “medical marijuana” law became effective.  Yet many employers have been blissfully ignorant about what the law provides, perhaps because Connecticut does not yet have a home-grown supply of marijuana and the registration process is just beginning.

But because of the law’s appeal, I would expect the impact to increase substantially in 2013.  Here are some key facts employers ought to know now:

What does the law provide?

  • It is legal for certain individuals to possess limited quantities of marijuana for “palliative use.”

    Are Policies “Up In Smoke”?
  • “Palliative Use” refers to the alleviation of a “qualifying patient’s” symptoms of a “debilitating medical condition.”
    • A “Qualifying Patient” is a Connecticut resident aged 18 or older who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.
    • A “Debilitating Medical Condition” includes cancer, glaucoma, AIDS or HIV-positive status, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, certain spinal cord injuries, Crohn’s disease, PTSD, and any other medical condition approved by the Department of Consumer Protection pursuant to regulations to be adopted.
  • Persons who may possess marijuana include qualifying patients and their “primary caregivers.”
How is the law being implemented and enforced?

What is the impact for employers?

  • Employers may not refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize or threaten an employee based solely on such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.
  • Employers may discriminate if required by federal funding or contracting provisions.
  • Employers MAY continue to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including marijuana, at work.
  • Employers MAY continue to discipline employees for being under the influence of intoxicating substances at work.
  • But employers MAY NOT presume that a drug test result that is positive for marijuana means that the employee used at work or was under the influence at work.
What about the interaction with the ADA?
 
There has yet to be a Connecticut case on this, but a recent case from the Ninth Circuit suggests the answer to the question: “What do I do if my employee asks to be permitted to smoke medical pot at work as a reasonable accommodation for a disabling medical condition?”  Because federal law still prohibits possession/use of marijuana, the court concluded that the ADA does not require this accommodation.
 
Will Connecticut law follow? We likely won’t have an answer to this question for some time.
 
What should employers consider doing now?
 
Employers should educate their staff as to the requirements of this new medical marijuana law and update policies, where necessary, to reflect the new legal requirements. 
 
For more on the national marijuana legalization trend, see this article in today’s Employment Law Daily.  And for more on the Connecticut law in general, see this article from the Connecticut Lawyer magazine (CBA membership required.)

Back from Memorial Day weekend, there’s plenty of employment law news that I haven’t had time to write about. So here’s a brief recap of some recent items that may be of interest to employers: