Skip to main content

Beware of Terminating Employees Because of Their Use of Medical Marijuana


Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., et al - New Jersey Supreme Court


Facts:  Justin Wild ("Wild") began work at Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. ("Carriage") in 2013.  In 2015, as part of medical treatment, he was prescribed marijuana as permitted by the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act ("Compassionate Use Act").  In 2016, while working, a vehicle that Wild was driving was struck by another vehicle that ran a stop sign.  At the hospital, Wild noted that he had a license to possess medical marijuana, although it was reported that Wild was not under the influence of marijuana at the time.

The following week, Wild was told that "corporate" was unable to "handle" Wild's marijuana use and that his employment was "being terminated because they found drugs in [his] system."  A few days later, Wild was sent a letter that "corporate" advised Wild was being terminated not because of his drug use, but because he failed to disclose his use of medication, which might adversely affect his ability to perform his job duties.

Wild subsequently brought suit against his employer on the grounds that his termination was in violation of the Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") and Compassionate Use Act.  The trial court granted the motion to dismiss after determining that the Compassionate Use Act "does not contain employment related protections for licensed users of medical marijuana."  The Appellate Division instead held that there was no conflict between the Compassionate Use Act and the LAD, such that Wild's claim could proceed ahead.  The subsequent appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court followed.

Holding:  In a brief opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that at the early stage of litigation, Wild had sufficiently plead a valid claim against Carriage based upon a cause of action for violation of the LAD and Compassionate Use Act.  The Court noted that the Compassionate Use Act impacted employment rights, such as Wild's in this case.  Wild's reasonable accommodation argument to use medical marijuana was therefore only possible because the Compassionate Use Act permitted such use.  As a result, using medical marijuana outside working hours (which Wild had done), may be found to be a reasonable accommodation under New Jersey law.

Judgment:  The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division's ruling that the motion to dismiss Wild's claims should be overturned, on the grounds that Wild's claims could proceed against his former employer as Wild's off site, non working hours use of medical marijuana could be a reasonable accommodation under the LAD.

The Takeaway:  I highlight this particular decision as a reminder to employers that medical marijuana users are often protected from adverse employment actions, based upon their use of medical marijuana.  Bear in mind, this case is not saying that medical marijuana users have free reign to do as they please, show up when the choose, work when they feel like it, etc.  Rather, employers should take steps to engage in the interactive process with employees that lawfully notify their employers of the employee's use of medical marijuana and request an accommodation.  Failing to amend policies and procedures (specifically zero tolerance policies) could risk employers running afoul of certain medical marijuana related laws in a given state.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Per curiam

Date:  March 10, 2020

Opinion:  https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/opinions/supreme/a_91_18.pdf?c=BIp

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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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