From Drug Test to Lawsuit: A Medical Marijuana Case Every Employer Should Know

If The Dude from The Big Lebowski applied for a job today—with a medical marijuana card in hand and nothing but good vibes—what legal rights would he actually have? A recent federal court decision from Pennsylvania offers a reality check for employers navigating job offers, drug tests, and lawful cannabis use.

The Scenario:
An individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety-sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. He disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression, and ADHD, and assured the employer it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive THC test, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued under two Pennsylvania laws.

The Court’s Split Decision:

1. Medical Marijuana Act (MMA): The court allowed the claim under the MMA to proceed. It found that the statute protects individuals not just from discrimination based on cardholder status, but also from adverse actions based solely on lawful use. As the court put it: “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.”
2. Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA): The court dismissed the disability discrimination claim under the PHRA with prejudice. Because marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate its use, even if prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. The court would have reached the same outcome under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Why It Matters:

This ruling clarifies that employers cannot take adverse action just because someone legally uses medical marijuana—at least under Pennsylvania’s MMA. But it also underscores that state-level protections have limits, especially where federal law comes into play.

Three Employer Takeaways:

1. Understand Varying State Protections:
   Laws governing medical marijuana use vary significantly from state to state. In some jurisdictions, cardholder status is protected; in others, it’s not. Multi-state employers must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices align with each applicable state law.
2. Ground Safety Concerns in Job-Specific Evidence:
   Broad or speculative safety concerns won’t cut it—especially in states with strong employee protections. If you’re citing safety risks, they should be specific, evidence-based, and clearly connected to the essential functions of the role.
3. Review Your Drug Testing and Accommodation Practices:
   Update policies to reflect current state law and clarify how your organization handles disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process.

Last Hit of Insight:

This decision is a reminder that medical marijuana laws are evolving, and, when new information has come to light, man, employers would be wise to abide. State law may protect off-duty, off-premises use—but federal law still complicates disability accommodations. Employers should approach these situations with clarity, consistency, and a case-specific analysis grounded in the actual job duties and risks.