An Arizona federal district court judge entered judgment against Walmart Inc. for terminating the employment of a woman who had been prescribed medical marijuana because it had not established through expert evidence that the employee was impaired by marijuana at work despite high levels of marijuana in the results of her drug test.  Therefore, the court held plaintiff’s termination was contrary to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, A.R.S. § 36-2813(B) (“AMMA”).

Case Background

In Whitmire v. Walmart Inc., the plaintiff Carol Whitmire had worked at Walmart since 2008, initially as a Cashier and thereafter as a Customer Service Supervisor.  During her employment Walmart had a drug testing policy which expressly stated that employees were prohibited from “[r]eporting to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol, including medical marijuana.”  Walmart’s policy also required employees to submit to a drug or alcohol test if they suffered a workplace injury that required medical treatment.  Plaintiff was aware of Walmart’s drug testing policy and acknowledged her understanding of the policy.

On May 21, 2016, plaintiff reported to Walmart that a bag of ice fell on her wrist while at work, and two days later, she notified Walmart that she experienced continued swelling and pain in her wrist.  On May 24, 2018, around approximately 2 a.m., plaintiff smoked medical marijuana for an alleged non-work related condition prior to going to sleep.  Later that same day at 2 p.m., plaintiff began her scheduled shift at Walmart and reported to human resources that her wrist still hurt.  Plaintiff left her shift because Walmart directed plaintiff to urgent care pursuant to its policy.  Plaintiff received an x-ray of her arm, submitted a urine sample for a post-accident drug test, and then returned to work.  After returning to work, plaintiff advised Walmart for the first time that she possessed a medical marijuana card and provided a copy.

Plaintiff’s drug screen tested positive for marijuana metabolites, and Walmart concluded that upon reasonable belief, the high levels of marijuana metabolites recorded in her positive test indicated that she was impaired by marijuana during her shift earlier that same day.  Walmart suspended and eventually terminated plaintiff citing the positive drug test as the reason.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona asserting that she was terminated and discriminated against in violation of the AMMA and other state laws.  Walmart denied that it wrongfully terminated or discriminated against plaintiff and asserted an affirmative defense that it had “established a policy and implemented a drug testing program” in compliance with the Arizona Drug Testing of Employees Act, A.R.S. § 23-493.06 (“DTEA”).

Walmart moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other arguments, that the AMMA did not provide plaintiff with a private cause of action against Walmart.  Additionally, Walmart argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it terminated plaintiff based on the results of a drug test taken during her shift, which showed that plaintiff had marijuana metabolites at the highest level the test could record, and which gave Walmart a good faith basis to belief plaintiff was impaired by marijuana during her work shift.  The State of Arizona filed an appearance and an amicus curiae brief.

The District Court of Arizona’s Ruling

After considering decisions from numerous other courts that considered whether their respective state medical marijuana laws created an implied cause of action against employers, the District Court held that the AMMA implied a private cause of action because no other remedy for violation of the statute was available.

The District Court next decided whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to plaintiff’s discrimination claims.  The District Court agreed with Walmart that an employer was allowed to establish a policy and drug testing program under the DTEA, which shields an employer from liability for “actions based on the employer’s good faith belief” that an employee was working while under the influence of drugs.  Additionally, the court held that, reading the AMMA and the DTEA in conjunction, a registered user of medical marijuana may be considered to be “under the influence of marijuana based solely on the presence of ‘metabolites or components of marijuana’ that appear in sufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

Walmart argued that the level of marijuana metabolites present in plaintiff’s drug screen results led Walmart to believe she was impaired at work. Walmart produced a declaration from its Personnel Coordinator in which the coordinator stated that the level of marijuana metabolites found was the “maximum reading the test can measure for marijuana.”  However, the court determined that proving impairment based on the results of a drug test was a “scientific matter” which required expert testimony and the Personnel Coordinator did not have the “requisite ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training or education’ to render opinions regarding the results of the Plaintiff’s drug test.”  Furthermore, the court held that Walmart was unable to prove that plaintiff’s drug test results were “so positive” that it had sufficient reason to believe that plaintiff was impaired while at work without expert testimony to establish impairment.  Therefore, the District Court sua sponte entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff because it determined there was no evidence that plaintiff was impaired at work.

Finally, the court held that plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim failed because she was not disabled.  Plaintiff’s claim that she was disabled or regarded as disabled because she qualified for a medical marijuana card was insufficient evidence of a disability.  Furthermore, the court followed precedent in the Third and Seventh Circuits and held that the side effects from smoking medical marijuana do not constitute a disability.

Takeaways for Employers

More than 30 states have legalized medical marijuana, and 10 states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational use.  Yet, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, and the legal implications of marijuana medical and recreational marijuana use are ever-evolving.  If you have any questions regarding this area or need assistance evaluating personnel decisions relating to employees and marijuana use, please contact the author, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Cannabis Law Practice.

With just under four weeks until Election Day, the push to legalize medical marijuana in Utah continues to progress. After years of failed efforts in the state legislature, the issue is being presented directly to voters by way of Utah Proposition 2, the Medical Marijuana Initiative. If the referendum passes, it will legalize medical cannabis for individuals with qualifying conditions. Eligible conditions include autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and chronic pain where the patient is unable to use opiates, among several other ailments. Continue Reading Give and Toke: Utah Reaches Compromise Agreement on Proposed Medical Marijuana Policy

On September 5, 2018, a federal district court in Connecticut granted summary judgment to a job applicant after an employer refused to hire her because she tested positive for marijuana in a pre-employment drug test. The decision, Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., should serve as a reminder to employers operating in states with medical marijuana laws to evaluate their policies and practices concerning employee use of marijuana outside the workplace. Continue Reading Federal Judge Rules that Employer Violated Connecticut Law by Refusing to Hire Medical Marijuana User

On June 25, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Epidiolex (cannabidiol), the first marijuana derived drug for use in the United States, to treat two rare forms of epilepsy. This decision for the FDA could have sweeping effects for the marijuana industry. While the FDA has previously approved drugs comprising synthetic (manufactured) cannabinoids, this is the first FDA approved drug comprised of an active ingredient derived from marijuana. Even with FDA approval, further action is required before Epidiolex can enter the market in the United States.

Continue Reading FDA Approves First Marijuana-Based Drug to Treat Epilepsy

Going in to this election, the possession and use of medical marijuana was illegal in Oklahoma. However, arguments against cannabis legalization have now gone up in smoke. The Oklahoma voters have spoken by enacting State Question (SQ) 788, which now makes it legal to grow, sell, and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Under the law, adults with a medical marijuana license would be authorized to, among other things, possess up to three ounces of marijuana on their person, six flowering plants, seventy two ounces of edibles, and one ounce of concentrated marijuana derived from the plant. SQ 788 will go into effect 30 days from June 26, 2018. Continue Reading Oklahoma Creates a Buzz by Legalizing Medical Marijuana

Can employers deny employment to people who use cannabis under a medical prescription authorized by state law? In more and more states, the answer is now “No.”

Changes in cannabis laws are creating a new haze for employers. What follows is a quick summary citing some (not all) states that now require employers to think twice before denying employment to individuals because they tested positive for the use of marijuana that they are ingesting for state-authorized medical reasons. Continue Reading Budding Development: States Requiring Employers to Tolerate Medical Cannabis Use

A recently-filed lawsuit in the federal district court in Arizona alleges that an employee’s use of medical marijuana may be permissible under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Although the employee faces an uphill battle, the case presents a challenge to the commonly-held view that the ADA does not support such a claim.

In Terry v. United Parcel Services, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-04972-PHX-DJB (D. Ariz., filed Dec. 29, 2017), a former UPS sales director alleges, among other things, that UPS terminated his employment in violation of the ADA and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”).  Terry alleges that he was a medical marijuana card holder under the AMMA, and that, at the direction of his doctor, he used medical marijuana during non-work hours to treat his nearly constant and extreme hip pain.  He claims that he never possessed, used, or was impaired by marijuana, alcohol, or any other impairing substance while present on UPS’s premises or during working hours.  According to the complaint, in April 2017, UPS required Terry to report immediately for a drug and alcohol screening test, and was informed that the reason for the test was “observable behavior.”  At a meeting with UPS officials one week later, Terry claims that UPS terminated his employment due to his positive drug and alcohol screening results and violating the company’s drug and alcohol policy.  Terry claims that he responded by notifying UPS that he has a valid medical marijuana card under the AMMA and a valid prescription for Adderall that he took to treat his ADD. Continue Reading A Potential P[l]ot Twist for Medical Marijuana and the ADA

Despite the dearth of approved marijuana products, the term “medical marijuana” has become commonplace, and the term’s prevalence continues to increase as more states legalize the use of the marijuana plant and its active derivatives for medical purposes, and marijuana dispensaries continue to expand throughout the United States.  As of 2017, 29 states and the District of Columbia have approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes.  (Despite state laws legalizing marijuana for medical and/or recreational use, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance its distribution and use remain illegal under Federal law.)

Studies on the potential of the marijuana plant or its extracts continue to expand and include, among others, treating pain,  preventing seizures,  and treating autoimmune disorders such as Crohn’s disease.  However, despite assertions of efficacy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not recognized or approved the marijuana plant as a medicine, and to date, the FDA has only approved three products – Marinol® and Syndrox®, which include the active ingredient, dronabinol, a synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), to treat nausea associated with chemotherapy and loss of appetite in AIDS patients; and Cesamet®, which includes the active ingredient, nabilone, a synthetically derived compound with a structure similar to THC, to treat nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.  These drugs are available by prescription only.

Continue Reading Is Medical Marijuana Really Medicinal?

On July 17, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), the highest state court in Massachusetts, held that an employer could be liable for disability discrimination by declining employment based on an individual’s off-duty medical marijuana use. This is a landmark decision, which has major implications for employers with drug testing programs and drug-free workplace policies. Continue Reading Is Medical Marijuana A Reasonable Accommodation? Mass. Court Says … Possibly