The lawful use of medical marijuana does not mean that an employer must permit an employee to work in an impaired condition, stated the Connecticut Appellate Court in a ruling this morning. The case arose when an employee, a preschool teaching assistant with epilepsy, was terminated for violating the employer’s policy against working under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The employee contended that her termination was illegal due to her status as a person qualified to use medical marijuana under Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana law. The employer’s handbook stated that working under the influence of drugs could result in the termination of employment.
In ruling in favor of the employer’s motion to dismiss the case, the Court stated: “It is unclear what-if any accommodation the defendant (i.e. employer) could make with respect to the plaintiff’s use of medical marijuana short of allowing her to appear impaired in the workplace.”
“This ruling is both important and instructive,” according to firm partner Atty. Padric Noonan. “It reflects Human Resources practices which prevented the court from finding for the employee. The employer’s handbook had a policy prohibiting working under the influence; the employer had a receipt of the handbook signed by the employee. The employer’s HR Manager conducted an investigation following the employee notice the employee may be impaired on the job. The employer also had a record of the only reasonable accommodation the employee requested, which related to asking the on-site nurse to store the medication, and the employer conducted a drug test on the basis of reasonable suspicion.”
He noted the Court stated, “The notes of the January 18, 2019, interview specifically asked the plaintiff if she understood that ‘the defendant’s human resources director specifically asked the plaintiff if she understood that the… incident ‘has nothing to do with your epilepsy’. The notes state the employee responded, ‘Yes, I do.’”
Noonan suggested employers should include in their handbooks a policy which notifies employees that working in an impaired condition is not permitted and that an employee whose use of prescription drugs which may have an adverse effect on job performance should notify their supervisors before commencing work.”
Editor’s Note: A copy of the case, Allyssa Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. is available for download below.
Comments