On March 7, 2025, the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a ruling on an employer’s motion to dismiss, focusing on the state’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and the state’s Human Relations Act as it pertains to a medical marijuana user.
Background
The plaintiff was a potential employee of the employer defendant. He received an employment offer for a project engineer position contingent on a pre-employment drug screen. Prior to the drug test, he informed company representatives for the employer that he was prescribed medications, including medical marijuana and his status as a cardholder, to treat medical conditions including anxiety, depression and ADHD.
Following the drug test, the employer revoked the conditional offer despite additional information offered by the plaintiff, including an offer from the plaintiff to enter into an agreement that he will refrain from cannabis usage during business or scheduled work hours. The plaintiff then filed suit alleging he was rejected solely on his status as a medical marijuana cardholder and that the employer failed to make reasonable accommodations for his disabilities or engage in an interactive process.
Court Ruling
MMA Claim
With respect to the plaintiff’s MMA claim, the employer argued the MMA protects employees from adverse action only when the action is predicated solely upon the basis of the individual’s cardholder status.
The court looked to rulings on the federal and state level for guidance, finding that “[a]s a practical matter, it seems to this Court that the MMA would be quite toothless if it only protected an employee’s ability to possess a medical marijuana card, rather than the employee’s ability to take the prescription medication that the card authorizes the individual to use.”
Finding that the plaintiff stated a plausible claim that it was the cardholder status, and not other factors alleged by the employer, the court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss allowing this claim to proceed.
Importantly, the court noted that it was not implying an employer commits a per se violation of the MMA for taking adverse employment action in response to failed marijuana drug tests. Rather, an employee must still demonstrate they can perform the essential functions of the job subject to the requirements and prohibitions of the MMA. Further, the MMA does not require accommodation of someone who is under the influence of marijuana on work premises or during work hours when that employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position.
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) Claim
Analyzing the plaintiff’s allegations of disability discrimination, the court found the PHRA does not require accommodations for the use of medical marijuana. Instead, the PHRA specifically references the Controlled Substances Act which still categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. The court cited a state court case which rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the MMA amended the PHRA. In the state court ruling, the Commonwealth Court pointed to the fact that the state legislature never amended the language of the PHRA to specifically require accommodation of medical marijuana use. The Western District Court found the ruling to be compelling enough to grant the employer’s motion to dismiss for this claim.
The ruling prevents a mixed bag for employers who may find relief in the PHRA claims especially as the discussion around potential accommodations for medical marijuana use becomes more widespread across the country. However, employers should review the MMA related claims in coordination with outside counsel while keeping track of how this case continues to progress.