Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics, Rhode Island Superior Court


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  A Rhode Island graduate student filed a lawsuit late last year against a textile company on the grounds that it discriminated against her because she used medical marijuana and was a registered medical marijuana card holder.  Apparently the company rescinded a paid internship offer to the student, Christine Callaghan, after Callaghan disclosed that she used medical marijuana because of migraines she suffered.  After Callaghan disclosed her use to a Darlington HR representative, Callaghan was contacted shortly thereafter and told she would not be offered the internship because of her status as a medical marijuana card holder and user.

Looking Back:  As noted over on the Orrick Blog, this suit appears to be the first to invoke the anti discrimination provisions of Rhode Island's medical marijuana law.  Note that under Rhode Island's law, schools, employers, and landlords may not "refuse to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize a person solely for his or her status as a card holder."

The Main Issue:  Whether the medical marijuana statute's anti discrimination language in regard to "solely for his or her status as a card holder" means that an employer in Rhode Island can lawfully make a[n employment] decision because of card holder status, if there is at least one other lawful reason for the [employment] decision?

Current Status:  At this point, the case is still in the very early stages of litigation.  The complaint was just filed late last year so this one has a ways to go yet.


A copy of the complaint can be found here:  http://riaclu.org/documents/Callaghan_v_Darlington_Complaint.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more