Michigan State Law Does Not Provide Private Employee Protection for Medical Marijuana Use

24 September 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) does not provide employment-related protection to employees who legally use medical marijuana pursuant to the MMMA. On September 19, 2012, the U.S. Sixth Circuit in Casias v. Wal-Mart ruled that the MMMA does not regulate private employment.The employee in Casias sued his former employer after being fired after a positive drug test. Prior to the drug test, the employee presented his registry card identifying him as a lawful user of medical marijuana under the MMMA. While the employee claimed he did not use medical marijuana while at work and was not under the influence while at work, his former employer discharged him after he tested positive for marijuana, in violation of the drug use policy. The employee subsequently sued for wrongful discharge claiming protection under the MMMA. The court rejected the employee’s wrongful discharge claim based on its conclusion that the language in the MMMA did not regulate private employment and thus, did not provide a cause of action to the employee.

The decision is consistent with decisions from other states such as Oregon, California, and Washington, where the courts determined that the state’s medical marijuana laws did not provide employment-related protection to employees. (See previous Labor & Employment Law Perspectives, June 4, 2012). For now, private employers in Michigan can continue to take employment-related actions against employees who test positive for marijuana, even if the employee is legally using medical marijuana under the MMMA.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services