SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
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.
United States
Pennsylvania
Cannabis & Hemp
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
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.
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.
