February 3 Tip of the Week

“Medical Marijuana Use – Protected Under the Law?”

A recent Pennsylvania case, Tyler v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P., et al., No. 24-5369 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2025), rejected an employer’s motion to dismiss a case filed a plaintiff who alleged that he was discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act when the employer refused to hire him because he had a medical marijuana card.  The issue of marijuana use, both recreational and medical, has been an area of concern and uncertainty for employers over the last several years, as the use of marijuana has become more widespread and the legal treatment of the drug has changed both on a state and federal basis. 

In the Tyler case, the plaintiff applied for a position as a Sales and Operations Management Trainee.  When the plaintiff was told that his job offer was conditional on his passing a drug screening test, the plaintiff stated that he had a medical marijuana card to treat his anxiety disorder, which was prescribed to him by a licensed medical provider.  The plaintiff stated that his healthcare provider advised him that his use of medical marijuana outside of work hours would not affect his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.  The plaintiff said that once he shared this information during the hiring process, the recruiter told him that the employer did not like medical marijuana cards and that he would not be hired because the employer was unable to accommodate his medical marijuana use.  In an effort to salvage his job offer, the plaintiff asserted that he would refrain from the use of medical marijuana and find other treatments for his anxiety.  Despite this, the employer rescinded the job offer and, in response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit claiming discrimination, retaliation, and violations of state and federal laws, moved for dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff failed the drug test. 

In denying the employer’s motion to dismiss, the court examined the facts of the case and the representations that were made during the hiring process.  The employer claimed that the plaintiff was subject to DOT regulations which prohibited the use of marijuana by any drivers of commercial motor vehicles and pointed to the job description that stated that driving was part of the duties of the role that the plaintiff was seeking.  The plaintiff alleged however, that the position summary and major responsibilities listed on the job description did not mention driving and claimed that, throughout the hiring process, he was assured that there was no driving required in the position as it involved inside sales. 

The court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, finding that the driving responsibilities were pretextual and that there was no evidence that the employee had used marijuana at the time the job offer was rescinded.  The court also found that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate under the ADA because it did not consider or engage in an interactive process in response to the plaintiff’s offer to forego the use of medical marijuana and find other treatments for his anxiety disorder. 

What does this decision mean for employers?  First, it is a reminder of the need for accurate job descriptions that reflect the actual job duties performed by individuals holding the position described.  Second, it is a cautionary tale of how stray comments and remarks during a job interview of the hiring process can be used against an employer.  Third, it is a reminder that there are few absolutes regarding the use of marijuana and whether it is disqualifying. And, finally, it reinforces the importance of engaging in the interactive process when dealing with an employee or an applicant who has a disability. 

myHRcounsel can assist you in these difficult matters, by reviewing your job descriptions, assisting in developing best practices in hiring, and responding to difficult situations that can lead to claims of discrimination or other violations of the law.