April is Stress Awareness Month. Let SHRM make your work life easier: Join Now
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Federal law does not preempt the Connecticut medical marijuana statute's prohibition on employers' firing or refusing to hire qualified medical marijuana patients, even if they test positive on an employment-related drug test, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has held (Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Health & Rehab. Ctr., No. 3:16-cv-01938 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2017)).
This is a case of first impression that may have potentially sweeping implications for state law and the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The court also held that the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) provides a private right of action for individuals claiming to be discriminated against as a result of their qualifying patient status, that PUMA's anti-discrimination provision does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and that employers regulated by federal laws are not exempt from the state statute's discrimination prohibitions.
According to the allegations in her complaint, Katelin Noffsinger is a registered qualifying patient who has used medical marijuana since 2015, when she was first prescribed a daily dose of Marinol (synthetic marijuana in capsule form) to treat symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In July 2016, Noffsinger was given a verbal offer for a position as Director of Recreational Therapy at Bride Brook, a nursing facility in Niantic, Connecticut. Shortly thereafter, she was asked to undergo a routine pre-employment drug screen. Noffsinger then disclosed to Bride Brook that she was diagnosed with PTSD and that she took prescription marijuana as a "qualifying patient" under PUMA.
Noffsinger provided Bride Brook a copy of her patient registration certificate, explaining that she only took Marinol in the evenings, before bed, and thus would not be impaired during the workday. Noffsinger offered to provide additional information if necessary, though none was requested by Bride Brook. The day before Noffsinger was scheduled to begin work, Bride Brook rescinded her job offer because she tested positive for marijuana.
Noffsinger filed a complaint in state court, alleging a violation of PUMA's anti-discrimination provision. The provision states, "[n]o employer may refuse to hire a person or may discharge, penalize or threaten an employee solely on the basis of such person's or employee's status as a qualifying patient."
(Noffsinger's claims for common law unlawful termination and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed. Connecticut does not provide for a common law unlawful termination claim when a specific cause of action under statute exists. Connecticut also does not allow for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims that arise from an employment relationship.)
After removing the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Bride Brook moved to dismiss Noffsinger's complaint, arguing:
The court rejected each of these arguments.
No Federal Preemption
Bride Brook argued that PUMA is preempted by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) based on the theory of "obstacle preemption," under which state laws are preempted or invalidated if they "stand as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress."
To prove obstacle preemption, a party must show the state law creates an "actual conflict" with an overriding federal purpose and objective—mere tension is generally insufficient.
Here, the court held that PUMA did not pose a conflict with any of the cited federal statutes:
Private Cause of Action
Bride Brook also moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that PUMA does not provide for a private right of action. While the parties agreed that PUMA does not specifically allow for such a right, the court nevertheless held that such a right was implied, based on an analysis of the statute, legislative history and applicable Connecticut precedent. Without a private right of action, the court held, PUMA's anti-discrimination provision would have no practical effect because there is no other enforcement mechanism.
Federally Regulated Employers
Bride Brook argued that it was exempt from PUMA's anti-discrimination provision, which prohibits employers from terminating or refusing to hire a qualifying patient "unless required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding."
As a nursing facility, Bride Brook is subject to federal regulations that require compliance with federal laws, and, as marijuana is illegal under federal law, Bride Brook reasoned it would be in violation of these regulations if it hired Noffsinger, a known marijuana user.
The court characterized this argument as "border[ing] on the absurd." It held that "the act of merely hiring a medical marijuana user does not itself constitute a violation of the CSA" or any other federal law.
Equal Protection Clause
In the event PUMA was not preempted by federal statute and allowed for a private right of action, Bride Brook argued that the statute nevertheless violates the Equal Protection Clause, as it requires employers to treat medical marijuana users differently than similarly situated recreational marijuana users.
Dismissing the argument as "frivolous," the court held that Connecticut's legislature could rationally distinguish employees who use marijuana for medicinal purposes under a physician's supervision from "people who use marijuana at their whim to get high."
Implications for Employers
Noffsinger complicates an already complicated landscape for employers who conduct drug testing for marijuana, particularly as the decision marks the third time in four months that a court has ruled against employers in drug testing cases involving medical marijuana users. (The others were Massachusetts and Rhode Island state courts.)
Noffsinger is the first time a federal court has considered whether the CSA preempts a state medical marijuana law's anti-discrimination provision, and the result is a warning to employer policies that include categorical denial or termination of employment because of a positive drug test.
Employers in Connecticut and elsewhere should consider the marijuana laws affecting their workplaces now, before an issue arises.
Kathryn J. Russo and Kathryn J. Barry are attorneys with Jackson Lewis in Long Island, N.Y. © Jackson Lewis. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Apply by April 13
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies