On May 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
because the use of medical marijuana remains illegal under federal
law, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not protect
against discrimination on the basis of medical marijuana use, even
if that use is in accordance with state law explicitly authorizing
such use. James v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 10-55769, Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals (May 21, 2012).
This case arose under California's medical marijuana law,
but wholly outside of the employment context. Four California
residents with severe disabilities obtained medical marijuana as
permitted under California law through medical marijuana
dispensaries in various cities, until the those cities took
affirmative steps to shut down the dispensaries. The four
California residents brought suit against the cities under Title II
of the ADA, asserting that they had been discriminated against in
the provision of public services due to the cities' attempts to
shutter the dispensaries. The trial judge denied the
plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief on the
grounds that the ADA does not protect against discrimination on the
basis of marijuana use deemed illegal by federal law.
The sole question considered by the courts in this case is a
narrow one: whether the plaintiffs' medical marijuana use
constituted "illegal use of drugs" under the ADA, 42
U.S.C. § 12210(d)(1). The Ninth Circuit held that because
Congress made it clear that the ADA defines "illegal drug
use" based strictly upon federal law, not state law, the
ADA's exclusion of illegal drug users from its protections also
excludes users of medical marijuana, even where the marijuana usage
is permitted by state law. Both courts outright rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that their state-permitted medical
marijuana use fell within an exception to the ADA's definition
of illegal drug use because it was supervised by a licensed health
care professional and/or authorized by the Controlled Substances
Act or other federal law.
Although this decision may restrict the ability of medical
marijuana users to bring claims against their employers under the
ADA, discrimination in employment remains specifically prohibited
under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). Even though this
case did not involve the AMMA or involve employment issues,
employers can take the court's clear message to heart that the
use of illegal drugs is defined by federal law, not state law.
Employers, however, should heed the Ninth Circuit's warning
that even though the ADA does not protect medical marijuana users
who claim to face discrimination on the basis of their marijuana
use, an individual may have another condition that rises to the
level of a disability and may therefore be entitled to protections
under the ADA. Equally important to remember is the Arizona Civil
Rights Act (ACRA), which also protects disabled workers from
discrimination. Presumably, Arizona courts will not define medical
marijuana as an "illegal drug" under the ACRA for
purposes of enforcing that statute. See A.R.S. §41-1461.4.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health & Human Services have issued new guidance on the content requirements for health plan summaries of benefits and coverage ("SBCs").
E-mail can be powerful evidence in a dispute, and whether employers and criminal investigators may use employee e-mail in litigation proceedings is a hot topic. A recent New York federal court decision outlined the current law in this area.
I wrote two years ago about the challenges employers face when an employee attributes his or her misconduct to a disability.
I wrote two years ago about the challenges employers face when an employee attributes his or her misconduct to a disability.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
