Massachusetts court rules for woman fired for medical marijuana use

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters




JULY 17, 2017 / 1:37 PM / 41 MINUTES AGO
Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' top court on Monday ruled that a woman who had been fired for testing positive for marijuana that she had been legally prescribed under state law could sue her former employer for handicap discrimination.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the former employer's argument that she could not sue it for handicap discrimination because possessing marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Lawyers for the ex-employee, Christina Barbuto, said the ruling represents a major win for employees in the state and set a precedent that they said could have an impact in other states where medical marijuana is legal. Barbuto had accused Advantage Sales and Marketing of firing her after her first day of work because she tested positive for the drug, which she had been prescribed by a doctor to treat low appetite, a side effect of her Crohn's disease.

Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote that if a doctor concludes medical marijuana is the most effective treatment for an employee's debilitating condition, "an exception to an employer's drug policy to permit its use is a facially reasonable accommodation."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-marijuana-idUSKBN1A21WX

[Old Vet]

1. Good for her...........

Finally a win for the little guy---

[Egnever]

6. Really?

I mean the ruling will undoubtedly help people but I am not certain this woman is a little guy.

Fired after one day on the job and hires a lawyer. Maybe she is a little guy and I am wrong.

[LanternWaste]

9. What specifically leads you to believe otherwise?

"but I am not certain this woman is a little guy..."
What specifically leads you to believe otherwise?

"Fired after one day on the job and hires a lawyer..."
Not really an accurate allegation... she had originally challenged her termination before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and only afterwards did she filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.

But maybe she is a really big guy and I am wrong...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Federalism FTW. NT

[yodermon]

3. but won't they just appeal to the supreme court, which will rule in favor of fed. law? n/t

[cstanleytech]

4. Thats assuming the court agrees to hear the case and even then its a coin toss.

[Sluggeaux]

5. I wonder if this can lead to a FFCC challenge?

If this ruling makes the run through the challenges now, does it open the door to a full faith and credit challenge for people who might test positive in other states that obtain their prescription, and marijuana while in those states? How about if someone takes a leave of absence from work for treatement in one of those states?

Might even lead to someone failing a drug test who used recreationally in a legal state?

Well past time we moved past the morality police legislations anyway.

[MichMan]

7. Does this mean that no one can now be fired for being stoned on the job?

Not sure how to take this. In my state, it isn't too hard for all kinds of people to get a MM card. 25 years old and claiming a "back injury" can get you one.

If you can't be fired for coming to work stoned, who is liable if you screw up causing an injury to either yourself or someone else?


Not sure I want a stoner fixing the brakes on my wife's car. Doesn't this put aa business owner in a no win situation?

[cannabis_flower]

8. This woman ..

was working for Advantage Sales and Marketing. I'm pretty sure her job was not a safety sensitive position. While I can see your point, I don't think I care if my shoe salesman, the cashier at Burger King or the guy who I talk to on the phone has a bit of a buzz. Add to that, most of these people don't medicate at work. Drug testing doesn't determine you are high when you took the test. It determines that you used marijuana in the month (sometimes longer) before you took the test. She could smoke a joint every night after work to stimulate appetite and test positive at work without being impaired. It doesn't measure the amount of marijuana in your system. It measures the non-psychoactive byproducts that are excreted in your urine (or that show up in your hair.)

[MichMan]

10. You know as well as I do that most state Supreme Court rulings set precedents for other situations

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

The issue is that they ruled you can't fire anyone with a MM card for failing a drug test. Doesn't really matter if you used it a week ago or on the way to work; the typical drug test can't differentiate between the two. Until they come up with a simple to administer test that detects impairment, this will continue to be an issue

The ruling doesn't appear to say that this only applies to shoe salesman, BK cashiers, or sales and marketing workers.

Who will be liable for instance if a pizza delivery guy runs a red light and kills someone. They do a drug test and find out he had THC in his system. His employee file indicates that the guy once failed a drug test, but the pizza store owner couldn't do anything about it because he had a MM card. Should the store owner be faced with a multi million dollar lawsuit because he knew and still allowed it to happen?

When medical Marijuana bill was passed in Michigan, it was sold with the premise that Grandma needed it because of chemo for cancer. While there are people that fall into that category, most appear to be much younger people claiming anxiety or back injuries etc. that may or may not be true. Dozens of shady doctors willing to write prescriptions for anyone walking in the door. All I am saying is that it puts an employer in a no win situation. I would think that even those favoring legalization can recognize that.