Federal Appeals Court Rules That Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
Does Not Regulate Private Employment
In 2008, Michigan voters approved the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act ballot
initiative by an overwhelming 63% margin. The Act allows qualifying patients who have
a “debilitating medical condition” the option to manage their pain by cultivating,
possessing, and using marihuana (that is how the Act spells it).
Unfortunately for everyone, the Act’s broad wording offered little or no guidance
on whether qualifying patients are exempt from an employer’s legitimate business
interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace. Now, four years later, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that the Act does not regulate private
employment and that Michigan employers are free to enforce their policies.
In Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Joseph Casias was diagnosed with sinus
cancer and an inoperable brain tumor.
He experienced constant pain.
Casias’
physician recommended that he try medical marihuana to help manage his pain.
Casias did so and reported a reduced level of pain, as well as relief from some of the
side effects of his other pain medication.
Several months after being issued a medical marihuana registry card, Casias
was involved in a minor accident at his workplace (Wal-Mart). The next day Casias
experienced difficulty walking and was taken to a hospital emergency room by his
supervisor. Since Casias had been injured on the job, he was given a standard drug
test at the hospital in accordance with Wal-Mart’s drug policy. After Wal-Mart was
notified of a positive result for marihuana, Casias was confronted by his supervisor.
Casias showed his him his registry card and told him he was not under the influence of
marihuana at the time of the accident, nor had he ever been under the influence of
marihuana while working. The following week, Wal-Mart’s corporate office directed the
local store manager to terminate Casias’ employment for violating Wal-Mart’s drug
policy.
Casias then brought a wrongful discharge lawsuit, arguing that the Act
prevented Wal-Mart from taking disciplinary action against him in light of his status as a
“qualifying patient.”
The federal trial court in Grand Rapids, Michigan found that the Act does not
regulate private employment. Instead, the court reasoned, the Act was simply intended
to provide a potential defense to a criminal prosecution or other adverse action taken by
the State of Michigan. The court noted that nothing in the language of the Act indicated
that it regulated private employment or attempted to alter the general rules governing atwill employment in Michigan.
On Casias’ appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling and agreed
that nothing in the Act’s language imposed restrictions on private employers.
The
appeals court observed that “the statute never expressly refers to employment, nor
does it require or imply the inclusion of private employment in its discussion of
occupational or professional licensing boards.”
The court also noted that Casias’
argument “is in direct conflict with other states which have passed similar legislation.”
And, it rejected Casias’ claim that his discharge was contrary to public policy, because
Casias’ interpretation would “prohibit any Michigan business from issuing any
disciplinary action against a qualifying patient.”
The Casias decision is a win for companies looking to promote a drug-free
workplace. While qualifying patients are certainly extended some protections under the
Act (e.g., criminal arrests and prosecutions under Michigan law), the Casias decision
2
states unequivocally that those protections do not include the freedom to violate a
Michigan employer’s drug policy. This outcome could, however, become clouded if a
Michigan state appellate court were to make a contrary ruling, or if a movement to
change the law to include private employment decisions were to be successful.
Brian D. Shekell
173744
3