STATE DRUG TESTING LAW 101 BY BILL CURRENT, CURRENT CONSULTING GROUP
Noffsinger v. SCC Niantic: What the Connecticut Court Ruling Means for Employers Nationwide
Tis information is provided for educational purposes only. Reader retains full responsibility for the use of the information contained herein.
E
mployers across the country have been abuzz with talk about the recent Connecticut court case,
Noffsinger v. SCC Niantic. Originally in the limelight in 2017 when the court first ruled on the case, a Connecticut judge recently provided summary judgement on the case, giving Connecticut employers definite guidance on the status of medical marijuana in the workplace.
Noffsinger: The Facts SCC Niantic Operating Company, LLC, is a federal contractor in the healthcare industry, founded in 2005. SCC Niantic provides inpatient nursing and rehab services to patients that require continuous healthcare and are headed out of Connecticut. As a federal contractor, SCC Niantic is required to comply with the federal Drug Free Workplace Act— meaning that marijuana would be classified as an illegal substance and its use would be prohibited in the workplace because of its federal Schedule I status. Te plaintiff, Noffsinger, applied for a job
with SCC Niantic in 2016 and was offered a position contingent on her ability to pass a pre-employment drug and alcohol test. Upon being offered the condition and being informed of the terms of employment, Noffsinger informed the employer that she used medical marijuana daily in order to treat her PTSD prior to the administration of the pre-employment drug test. Aſter Noffsinger tested positive for marijuana, the compliance director for SCC Niantic informed an administrator that despite state
40 datia focus
legalization, medical marijuana was not to be considered an approved prescription by the company due to its continued federally illegal status. As such, the job offer, which was contingent on passing the pre-employment drug and alcohol test, was rescinded, and Noffsinger subsequently filed suit against the employer.
The 2017 Ruling Prior to this year’s ruling, the court previously ruled on whether or not the case could continue based on SCC Niantic’s claim that they could not be sued by an employee as they were in compliance with federal law. Te court held that Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) outweighs federal law for Connecticut employers, stating:
“No employer may refuse to hire a person or may discharge, penalize, or threaten an employee solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying [medical marijuana] patient.”
Many states’ medical marijuana laws
specifically include a provision that if an employer is federally regulated, exempt from all medical-marijuana-using employee discrimination clauses, and Connecticut’s PUMA is no exception. Despite this, the court held that Connecticut employers that are regulated by federal laws are not exempt from PUMA’s discrimination prohibitions and that PUMA provides a legal course of action for any employee that claims to be discriminated against by an employer as a result of their medical marijuana qualifying status. Additionally, the court also ruled that PUMA is not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, despite its antidiscrimination provision.
As part of the 2017 ruling, the court
also ruled that PUMA is not preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Te ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified employee on the basis of a disability; however, the ADA does not protect medical marijuana users. While PUMA, similar to the ADA, does not protect current drug users in the workplace, the court ruled that medical marijuana is not an illegal drug and is therefore protected under PUMA. Te 2017 ruling did not decide the outcome of the case, simply ruling that the case could continue and flushing out some of the facts of the case that were in dispute.
The 2018 Summary Judgement
Aſter the 2017 court ruling, the facts of the case were essentially agreed upon by both sides, Noffsinger and SCC Niantic, meaning that the case did not need to go to a jury and could be decided by a judge as a mater of law. Aſter examining the facts, the court ruled that SCC Niantic was in violation of PUMA by discriminating against Noffsinger based on her status as a qualified medical-marijuana user. Based solely on an analysis of PUMA’s
wording, it should not be surprising to employers that the court ruled in favor of Noffsinger and other potential medical marijuana users. However, as SCC Niantic is a federally regulated employer, it comes as a surprise that the federal Drug Free Workplace Act was ruled irrelevant in this particular case. SCC Niantic made the argument that as a federal contractor subject to federal regulations and the Drug Free Workplace Act, they were not required to permit medical marijuana use, regardless
winter 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
