Back in June, I had pointed readers to a case from the Rhode Island Superior Court that addressed whether an applicant had a valid employment discrimination claim when she alleged that her potential employer failed to hire her for a position once the employer learned she had a medical marijuana card. That case, Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics, held that the applicant had a valid employment discrimination claim against the potential employer. As a result, Callgahan v. Darlington Fabrics has proven to be the preeminent case on medical marijuana discrimination claims so far and has resulted in a wave of similar findings from other courts that have considered the issue.
Given the likelihood that these medical marijuana discrimination cases are likely to become more prevalent as states continue to adopt laws making medical marijuana use lawful, I think it is appropriate to lead this post off with that topic.
As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.
Growing Trend Emerges in the Context of Employment Discrimination Claims By Medical Marijuana Users
The National Law Review published a well researched article on Tuesday in which the growing number of employment discrimination claims brought by medical marijuana users was explored. In relevant part, the article acknowledged that this largely unexplored topic has become prevalent as of late, with courts in Rhode Island (Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics), Massachusetts (Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing LLC), and Connecticut (Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operation Company, LLC) holding valid causes of action for employment discrimination existed when an employer failed to hire an applicant because of his/her use of medical marijuana or failed to accommodate a medical marijuana card holder's use. While this area of law remains largely unsettled (especially in some jurisdictions that have only recently enacted medical marijuana laws), I would expect these "seminal" cases to start gaining attention going forward.
48% of Women Report Having Been Sexually Harassed in the Workplace
Louise Radnofsky penned a rather sobering article for The Wall Street Journal earlier this week in which she reported that approximately half of employed women have been sexually harassed in the workplace. Interesting to note that the same report identified that nearly 60% of men had witnessed the harassment at one point or another. Perhaps the problem is not that the harassment has gone unnoticed but rather adequate steps have not yet been taken to actually reign in and curtail the root of the problem.
Closing Arguments Made in GrubHub Independent Contractor/Employee Case
Earlier this week, closing arguments were made in the Lawson v. GrubHub case that centers on whether an ex-GrubHub driver was misclassified as an independent contractor while he delivered food for the company. As noted at trial, the burden is on GrubHub to prove Lawson was an independent contractor rather than an employee. While no factor is controlling, there certainly are arguments to be made on both sides. Several factors weigh in GrubHub's favor in that regard: Lawson had control over when he wanted to work and the delivery of food was not even a core part of the company's business. However, several factors also weighed in favor of Lawson being designated as an employee: GrubHub could terminate him at will (an indicator of employment status) and had "control" over the drivers (namely allowing dispatchers to give their favorite drivers more orders). The ruling on this case could set a precedent for other similar "gig economy" employment disputes down the line. You had better believe that other related companies are keeping a close eye on this one.
Comments
Post a Comment