Burned by the ADA: When Legal Weed Gets You Fired

Turns out a medical marijuana card can’t cure everything—especially if what you’ve got is a bad case of ADA expectations. Here’s a lesson in what happens when federal law refuses to roll with the times.

---

TL;DR:
A Pennsylvania federal court just held that legally using medical marijuana under state law doesn’t protect an employee under the ADA. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the ADA’s protections didn’t apply—and the worker’s disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims were dismissed.

---

‘Just So You Know, I’m Going to Test Positive’: The Preemptive Confession
A steelworker got into a workplace altercation and, as a result, was sent for drug testing. He proactively told both his union rep and the nurse administering the test that he was likely to test positive for THC. He had a valid medical marijuana card and used it to treat anxiety, depression, and bipolar II disorder.

The test came back positive. He was suspended, then fired. He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, arguing that he had a disability and was fired for legally treating it.

Why Medical Marijuana Use Disqualified the Employee Under the ADA
The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. But there’s a big catch: it doesn’t protect employees who are “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.” And under federal law, marijuana—even if prescribed—is still a Schedule I controlled substance.

So the court held he wasn’t a “qualified individual” under the ADA. In the eyes of federal law, his medical marijuana use disqualified him from ADA protection—regardless of what state law says.

No Clue, No Claim: When HR Doesn’t Know, the ADA Doesn’t Flow
The employee argued that the real issue wasn’t the marijuana—it was the conditions he used it to treat. The court agreed that anxiety, depression, and bipolar II disorder could qualify as disabilities. But it didn’t matter. The court found that the company based its decision entirely on the drug test result.

And there was another key detail: the people who made the termination decision didn’t know about the employee’s medical conditions. That sealed it. Because the employer wasn’t aware of the disability, it couldn’t have discriminated because of it.

No Ask, No Obligation: Why the ADA Doesn’t Read Minds
The employee also brought a failure-to-accommodate claim. But under the ADA, that duty only kicks in if the employer knows—or should know—about the disability and the need for an accommodation. Here, there was no such knowledge. No duty, no violation.

The ADA’s Buzzkill: Legal Weed Still Isn’t Protected
This is a sharp reminder that ADA protections don’t extend to medical marijuana use—at least not under federal law. Employers are still on solid ground there if they take action based on a positive THC result, even if the employee has a medical card.

But the analysis could change under state law or if the employer knows about the underlying disability and fires the employee for reasons that aren’t clearly limited to marijuana use. That’s when ADA protections might come into play.

Bottom Line:
If your drug testing policy doesn’t distinguish between illegal use and legally prescribed medical use, it might be airtight under federal law—but still vulnerable under state law. The ADA doesn’t require accommodation for marijuana use. But don’t forget: your team still needs to know the law in the state you operate in. Because that’s where the real exposure may be.