May 9, 2025
A federal judge for the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania recently reversed his previous decision. That decision dismissed an individual’s disability discrimination claim.
The job applicant had a medical marijuana card but allegedly faced discrimination, saying the company rescinded the offer after a pre-employment drug screening. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville reversed his previous decision to dismiss the disability claim while considering whether to certify an appeal of the decision. He said he had not given sufficient consideration to the plaintiff’s claim: The employer failed to discuss reasonable accommodations for the plaintiff’s disability apart from his use of medical marijuana.
The plaintiff claimed the defendant rescinded his job offer after a pre-employment drug test. He also revealed the following diagnoses: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and depression. The plaintiff then explained that he received prescription drugs to treat his conditions and received certification to use medical marijuana.
Initially, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). He explained that the decision in Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) v. Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission constrained his choices. According to this case, the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate the use of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana use is not considered a qualified disability.
The judge’s current decision reinstated the claim of disability discrimination rather than certifying the appeal of his prior dismissal of the claim. Upon the reinstatement, he explained that a similar claim happened in 2020 in the case Hudnell v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc; the Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed a claim in which a woman had a disability separate from her marijuana use to continue. The decision from this case supports the plaintiff’s claim from the case the judge initially dismissed.
Despite the reversal, the judge clarified that the defendant does not have to allow off-duty marijuana use as an accommodation. However, it did fail to engage in the interactive process that the PHRA requires. This failure occurred when the defendant rescinded the job offer without considering other possible accommodations.
As a reminder from the above cases, the Court found that nothing requires employers to allow medical marijuana use as an accommodation as part of the PHRA. However, employers should consider engaging in the interactive process with job applicants or employees with a medical marijuana card. This process helps determine if the individual has a disability that requires accommodation.
Disclaimer:
Information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only and should not constitute as legal advice. We recommend you contact your own legal counsel for any questions regarding your specific practices and compliance with applicable laws.