A recent opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania serves a win to a medical marijuana card-holder who brought claims against an employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”), and Pennsylvania common law. The decision reflects careful fact pleading by the plaintiff. It also highlights a number of important themes for Pennsylvania employers, including the importance of evaluating job duties and having legitimate reasons for policies prohibiting off-duty marijuana use. In jurisdictions with employment protections for medical marijuana users, the decision also underscores the care employers should take if an employee or applicant discloses that they are a lawful medical marijuana user.
The Factual Allegations and Background
In Tyler v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P., et al., No. 24-5369 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2025), the plaintiff, a job applicant for a position as a Sales and Operations Management Trainee, alleged that the defendant-employer said his job offer was conditioned on passage of a drug screening test. After receiving the offer, the plaintiff told the recruiter that he had a Pennsylvania medical marijuana card, prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner to treat an anxiety disorder. The plaintiff alleged that his healthcare provider advised him that use of medical marijuana “outside of work hours while not on duty would not adversely affect his ability to safely operate any motor vehicle.”
According to the plaintiff, the recruiter told him that the employer “doesn’t like medical marijuana cards.” The complaint asserted that the employer subsequently informed the plaintiff that he would not be hired for the role because the employer “can’t accommodate [his] medical marijuana card.”
To try and salvage his job offer, the plaintiff alleged that he told the recruiter that “he was willing to refrain from any marijuana use and find alternate treatments.” The employer, however, did not reconsider its recission of the job offer, according to the complaint.
The plaintiff then sued the employer in federal court claiming discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate under the ADA, as well as violations under the MMA and the Pennsylvania common law of wrongful discharge. The employer moved to dismiss all causes of action and claimed that the plaintiff failed a drug screening test. The court denied the employer’s motion.
The Decision
As is often the case, a major factor in the court’s denial of the motion to dismiss stemmed from the motion’s procedural posture and the factual allegations in the complaint, which a court must generally accept as true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. As a result, the court had to accept, among other allegations, the plaintiff’s claims that (a) he did not use marijuana at the time the employer rescinded his offer of employment, and (b) the position at issue did not require the operation of any motor vehicle. The job description and offer letter for the position mentioned that driving duties were part of the position, and both also referred to the employer’s business being subject to strict federal regulations by the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). Among those regulations is that a driver of a commercial motor vehicle not use any Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, which includes marijuana.
However, the plaintiff alleged that the role’s “Position Summary” and “Major Responsibilities” sections did not mention anything about driving. The plaintiff also alleged that during his recruitment process, he was “never once informed” that he would need to drive and stated that he “was informed during his orientation process that he would never have to operate any vehicles on any public roadway for his inside sales position.”
The court denied the motion to dismiss. Regarding the ADA disability discrimination claim, the court found it logical to infer that (a) the plaintiff did not use marijuana at the time the employer rescinded its offer, (b) the DOT regulation did not apply to the position sought, and (c) the purported driving responsibilities for the position were pretextual, meaning false and a means of discriminating against the plaintiff based on his disability.
Regarding the ADA failure to accommodate claim, the court observed that, per the complaint, the plaintiff had offered to forego marijuana use, yet the employer failed to engage in an interactive discussion regarding accommodations for the plaintiff’s disability and doubled down on its refusal to hire him. The employer argued simply that it was legally barred from hiring a drug user. But, as the court already reasoned, the complaint alleged plausibly that the plaintiff was not a drug user, the DOT regulations did not apply, and the alleged driving requirement was a pretext.
Further, because the driving requirements for Tyler’s role were viewed as plausibly pretextual and the DOT regulations inapplicable, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s MMA and common law wrongful termination claims. Having found that the plaintiff alleged plausibly that the driving requirement was pretextual and that the DOT regulations did not apply, the court rejected the employer’s arguments that federal law preempted the Pennsylvania MMA and wrongful termination claims.
What the Decision Means for Employers
The decision offers lessons for employers in states where the law provides employment protections to medical marijuana users. In particular, it is a helpful reminder that the interactive process is important. Leaping straight from learning that an individual is a lawful medical marijuana user in a jurisdiction with employment protections can be risky. Understanding why the individual uses marijuana, when, and under what conditions might have a material impact on the accommodation or adverse action decision.
Likewise, the decision serves as a reminder that employers in jurisdictions with employment protections for medical marijuana users should carefully craft their policies prohibiting marijuana usage, which may need to be rooted in genuine, verifiable, and consistent reasoning related to the actual tasks expected of the employee, not to mention applicable federal, state, and local law on the subject of marijuana use. In this case, the candidate was able to craft a complaint that survived a motion to dismiss by alleging, in part, that he did not use marijuana at the relevant time, that any use was off-duty, and that the position he sought did not require commercial driving, thereby bringing the position out from under the DOT’s strict drug and alcohol testing regulations, which does not permit medical marijuana users to perform DOT-covered safety sensitive duties.
For more information on the evolution and implementation of cannabis laws in the United States, please subscribe to The Blunt Truth®.
If you have any questions or concerns or would like legal advice about any issues concerning cannabis, please reach out to our team of attorneys here at Seyfarth.