Contact
Boston
Providence
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
Five things every Massachusetts employer should know about this landmark case.
On July 17, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled, in Cristina Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, that an employee terminated because of a positive drug test due to lawfully-prescribed medical marijuana use may sue her former employer for handicap discrimination. This decision represents a dramatic departure from similar cases in other jurisdictions that consistently dismissed wrongful termination claims based on legal (under state law) marijuana use, and creates new and significant potential employer liability for addressing employees’ medical marijuana use. What follows is a brief overview of this groundbreaking case, and five take-aways for Massachusetts employers.
Facts of the Barbuto Case:
Cristina Barbuto was an entry-level employee with Advantage Sales and Marketing (“ASM”). Upon her hire, Ms. Barbuto disclosed to ASM that she would fail the company-mandated drug test because she used medical marijuana prescribed by her doctor to treat her Crohn’s disease. Although ASM initially told Ms. Barbuto that her medical marijuana use “should not be a problem,” ASM terminated her employment after she took and failed the drug test. Ms. Barbuto subsequently sued ASM and its Human Resources representative alleging, among other things, handicap discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and invasion of privacy. The trial court dismissed all claims but the invasion of privacy claim. On appeal, however, the SJC overturned the dismissal of the handicap discrimination claims, ruling that Ms. Barbuto could pursue those claims based on ASM’s termination of her for using medically-prescribed marijuana.
Five Things Every Massachusetts Employer Should Know:
1. The SJC’s decision is a stark departure from traditional marijuana jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, and may well mark a turning point here in Massachusetts.
The SJC’s Barbuto opinion is a dramatic departure from the rulings of other state courts – including many states at the forefront of the medicinal, and even recreational, marijuana movement (e.g., California, Colorado, and Washington) – that have consistently rejected wrongful termination claims based on marijuana use that is otherwise legal in those states. In most of those cases, the courts held that an employer may take an adverse action against an employee for use of marijuana because possession of marijuana – medicinal or recreational – is still illegal under federal law, irrespective of state laws or regulations permitting it. The SJC not only acknowledges this departure from precedent in other jurisdictions, but appears to embrace it by distinguishing Barbuto and Massachusetts law from those other cases and affirmatively rejecting the oft-cited defense that an employer is free to terminate an employee for using medical marijuana because the federal government has not yet approved marijuana for medicinal use. Overall, the SJC’s reasoning suggests an entirely new perception of medical marijuana, one that diverges from viewing marijuana simply as an illicit drug and encourages viewing it as one would any other prescribed medicine. At one point in the opinion, the SJC even equates an individual’s use of medical marijuana to a diabetic’s use of insulin. While it is too early to predict the precise application of this ruling to future cases, the SJC appears to have sent a clear signal to trial courts to follow a similarly progressive approach to medical marijuana.
2. Barbuto is still about handicap discrimination; it does not create a marijuana discrimination law.
To be clear, it was not Ms. Barbuto’s medical use of marijuana that justified her handicap discrimination claim, but rather it was her underlying disability that necessitated the use of marijuana as medicine. It is possible that some will misinterpret the Barbuto decision as creating some new “marijuana discrimination law” that creates a new protected class in the form of medical marijuana users. But that is not the case. Rather, the SJC’s decision relies exclusively on existing handicap discrimination laws. These laws, codified at M.G.L. ch. 151B, prohibit employers from dismissing or refusing to hire an individual because of a handicap so long as he/she can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. It was under this framework that the SJC found that Ms. Barbuto could bring a discrimination claim on the basis of her handicap, i.e. Crohn’s Disease, because she could still perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation, namely, a departure from ASM’s drug policy to accommodate her off-site use of medical marijuana.
3. Notwithstanding the Barbuto ruling, the SJC has still left the door open for employers to forbid even lawful marijuana use in certain circumstances.
One thing the SJC’s decision in Barbuto does not do is require employers to accept employees’ legal marijuana use in every situation. The SJC was clear that an employer may still refuse to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana where it can establish that the use “would cause an undue hardship to the employer’s business.” Although the SJC made it harder for an employer to meet this burden by explicitly rejecting the notion that marijuana use should be considered per se unreasonable because it remains illegal under federal law, the SJC explicitly left open the possibility that an employer could meet this burden where off-site medical marijuana use would impair the employee’s work, create a safety risk, or violate a contractual, statutory, or regulatory obligation of the employer.
4. Employers must engage with its employees to try and resolve handicap accommodation issues before terminating them.
One of the biggest criticisms the SJC had of ASM was its failure to engage with Ms. Barbuto to find an alternate reasonable accommodation before terminating her. Under Massachusetts law, even if ASM could legally refuse to permit an employee to use medical marijuana, ASM was still required to engage Ms. Barbuto in an “interactive process” to explore whether there were any equally effective alternatives to her use of marijuana. But ASM failed to do so, and that failure clearly impacted the SJC’s ultimate decision. Employers would be wise to heed the SJC’s stern warning that “failure to explore a reasonable accommodation alone is sufficient to support a claim of handicap discrimination.” Employers should ensure that they have a policy that mandates such an interactive process any time an employee requests an accommodation, whether that accommodation includes the use of medical marijuana or other treatment for any disability or handicap.
5. Because the Barbuto decision does not require employers to permit unrestricted use of medical marijuana, it creates an immediate need for employers to have a plan and detailed policies for addressing this issue when it arises.
As noted above, the Barbuto decision does not create a blanket rule preventing employers from taking employment action based on employee medical marijuana use in all circumstances. But by permitting terminated employees to sue for handicap discrimination in certain situations, the decision underscores the need for employers to be aware of these issues and to establish detailed policies to deal with requests for accommodations as they arise. Having a plan for dealing with medical marijuana use by employees will enable employers to avoid lawsuits and civil liability, whether it be for handicap discrimination or other permissible claims. For example, even the trial court acknowledged that Ms. Barbuto had a valid invasion of privacy claim against ASM based on her allegation that ASM’s drug testing policy was not reasonable and/or commensurate with her job duties or industry standards. Employers should review those and other policies to ensure that they appropriately balance their interest in identifying drug use against their employees’ right to privacy.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2019 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
November 06, 2018
| Elizabeth Foley
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Barrett & Singal Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes four Barrett & Singal attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
June 13, 2018
| Michelle Peirce, David Chorney
Michelle Peirce and David Chorney Co-Host FBA Health Law Committee Panel
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell, Andrew Maglione
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
| Elizabeth Foley, Mikaela Taberner
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell, Andrew Maglione
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
December 08, 2018
CNN interviews Bruce Singal about the Mueller Investigation
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Barrett & Singal Attorneys
-
August 23, 2018
Bruce Singal explains the legal implications of Michael Cohen's plea and Paul Manafort's conviction on "Greater Boston"
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes four Barrett & Singal attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
August 09, 2018
Jim Braude Interviews Litigation Co-Chair Bruce Singal
-
June 13, 2018
| Michelle Peirce, David Chorney
Michelle Peirce and David Chorney Co-Host FBA Health Law Committee Panel
-
May 30, 2018
Bruce Singal discussed the Mueller Investigation on "Greater Boston"
-
May 10, 2018
Mass Lawyers Weekly Recognizes Elizabeth McEvoy
-
April 05, 2018
| Bruce Singal
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
February 01, 2018
Michelle Peirce and Bruce Singal awarded Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s Lawyer of the Year award.
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
October 14, 2016
Event - The Gathering Storm: The Looming Rhode Island Financial Crisis in Public Pensions and Other Post Employment Benefits
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell, Andrew Maglione
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 18, 2016
Attorney William Dolan Wins Important Superior Court Ruling for City of Providence
-
August 18, 2015
| Nicholas Nybo
Preserving Justice: A Discussion of Rhode Island’s “Raise or Waive” Doctrine
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
June 20, 2014
New DOE Proposed Rule on Sexual Violence: 5 Things Every College and University Should Know
-
May 02, 2014
Title IX and Sexual Violence: 7 Things Every School Needs to Know About The Department of Education’s New Guidance
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
This website presents general information about Barrett & Singal and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Barrett & Singal by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Barrett & Singal’s new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Barrett & Singal, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Barrett & Singal will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Barrett & Singal, please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Barrett & Singal.