Employers in many jurisdictions across the country are dealing with laws that prohibit adverse actions against employees who use marijuana, whether for recreational or medicinal purposes, away from the workplace and during non-working hours. A recent appellate court decision in one of the more marijuana-friendly states, Connecticut, reassures employers that they do not have to allow employees to work while impaired by marijuana.
In the case, Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britian, Inc., a preschool teaching assistant had received the employer’s drug free workplace policy, which stated that working under the influence of drugs might result in termination of employment. After an epileptic seizure, the teaching assistant began taking medical marijuana, but she did not tell her employer about such use.
One day at school, the assistant referred to a student by an incorrect name in front of a teacher. The teacher asked the assistant if she was feeling badly, and the assistant admitted that she was a medical marijuana user and was impaired because of taking too much marijuana earlier in the day. The teacher reported this, and her observations of the assistant acting impaired during the preceding weeks, to the school. The school investigated, and during the investigation the assistant admitted to being impaired at work. Also, several witnesses informed the school that they saw the assistant behave in ways that are consistent with marijuana impairment. A week after the classroom incident, the school asked the assistant to take a marijuana test, which was negative.
Despite the negative test result, the school fired the assistant for being impaired by marijuana at work. The assistant sued, claiming that she was terminated because of her status as a medical marijuana user and for being disabled. The appellate court ruled in favor of the school, finding that the termination was based on the assistant’s admitted impairment during work hours.
The assistant also claimed that the school violated Connecticut’s drug testing law by performing a reasonable suspicion drug test in the absence of reasonable suspicion. The court rejected that claim, as well, noting that reasonable suspicion to require a drug test existed because the assistant had admitted to being impaired at work and multiple witnesses reported to the school that the assistant had shown signs of impairment at work.
This decision shows that, even as legal protections for marijuana users increase in some locations, employers can still enforce rules that prohibit employees from using or being impaired by marijuana while working.