The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act ("MMMA"), MCL 333.26421, et seq., does not regulate private employment. The ruling in Casias v Wal-Mart Stores Inc, ___ F3d ___ (6th Cir 2012) affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and was prescribed various pain relief medications by his oncologist. Subsequent to the passage of the MMMA, the oncologist recommended that the plaintiff try marihuana to alleviate his pain. The Michigan Department of Community Health reportedly issued the plaintiff a registry card and, in accordance with Michigan law, he began using marihuana to manage his pain. Plaintiff maintained that "he complied with the state laws and never used marijuana [sic] while at work; nor did he come to work under the influence." Instead, he "used his other prescription medication during the workday and only used the marijuana [sic] once he returned home from work."
Following a work-related injury, the plaintiff was taken to the hospital by a Wal-Mart manager and, pursuant to the company's drug use policy for employees, was administered a standard drug test. Plaintiff showed his registry card to the testing staff prior to his drug test to establish that he was a qualifying patient for medical marihuana under Michigan law. As would be expected under the circumstances, he tested positive for marihuana. He was thereafter terminated for violating the company's drug use policy.
Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart in state court, contending that it violated the MMMA because the statute prevents a business from engaging in disciplinary action against a card holder who is a qualifying patient. He also asserted a wrongful discharge theory, arguing that his discharge was contrary to public policy. Following Wal-Mart's removal of the case to federal court, the district court dismissed the case. It held that "the MMMA does not regulate private employment; [r]ather the Act provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution or other adverse action by the state." The court also held that the MMMA "does not protect Plaintiff's right to bring a wrongful termination action because the MMMA does not regulate private employment." Plaintiff appealed.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case, and specifically its conclusion that the MMMA "contains no language stating that it repeals the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan or that it otherwise limits the range of allowable private decisions by Michigan businesses." (Emphasis supplied.) The court held that the word "business," as it is used in MCL 333.26424(a), refers to a "business" licensing board or bureau and that the statute, "is simply asserting that a 'qualifying patient' is not to be penalized or diciplined by a 'business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau' for his medical use of marijuana [sic]." Accordingly, it held that the MMMA does not impose restrictions on private employers, such as Wal-Mart. The court also noted that acceptance of the plaintiff's public policy theory, "could potentially prohibit any Michigan business from issuing any disciplinary action against a qualifying patient who uses marijuana [sic] in accordance with the Act," and that "[s]uch a broad extension of Michigan law would be at odds with the reasonable expectation that such a far-reaching revision of Michigan law would be expressly enacted."
Disclaimer
Plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and was prescribed various pain relief medications by his oncologist. Subsequent to the passage of the MMMA, the oncologist recommended that the plaintiff try marihuana to alleviate his pain. The Michigan Department of Community Health reportedly issued the plaintiff a registry card and, in accordance with Michigan law, he began using marihuana to manage his pain. Plaintiff maintained that "he complied with the state laws and never used marijuana [sic] while at work; nor did he come to work under the influence." Instead, he "used his other prescription medication during the workday and only used the marijuana [sic] once he returned home from work."
Following a work-related injury, the plaintiff was taken to the hospital by a Wal-Mart manager and, pursuant to the company's drug use policy for employees, was administered a standard drug test. Plaintiff showed his registry card to the testing staff prior to his drug test to establish that he was a qualifying patient for medical marihuana under Michigan law. As would be expected under the circumstances, he tested positive for marihuana. He was thereafter terminated for violating the company's drug use policy.
Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart in state court, contending that it violated the MMMA because the statute prevents a business from engaging in disciplinary action against a card holder who is a qualifying patient. He also asserted a wrongful discharge theory, arguing that his discharge was contrary to public policy. Following Wal-Mart's removal of the case to federal court, the district court dismissed the case. It held that "the MMMA does not regulate private employment; [r]ather the Act provides a potential defense to criminal prosecution or other adverse action by the state." The court also held that the MMMA "does not protect Plaintiff's right to bring a wrongful termination action because the MMMA does not regulate private employment." Plaintiff appealed.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case, and specifically its conclusion that the MMMA "contains no language stating that it repeals the general rule of at-will employment in Michigan or that it otherwise limits the range of allowable private decisions by Michigan businesses." (Emphasis supplied.) The court held that the word "business," as it is used in MCL 333.26424(a), refers to a "business" licensing board or bureau and that the statute, "is simply asserting that a 'qualifying patient' is not to be penalized or diciplined by a 'business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau' for his medical use of marijuana [sic]." Accordingly, it held that the MMMA does not impose restrictions on private employers, such as Wal-Mart. The court also noted that acceptance of the plaintiff's public policy theory, "could potentially prohibit any Michigan business from issuing any disciplinary action against a qualifying patient who uses marijuana [sic] in accordance with the Act," and that "[s]uch a broad extension of Michigan law would be at odds with the reasonable expectation that such a far-reaching revision of Michigan law would be expressly enacted."
Disclaimer
RSS Feed
