Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025

A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act.


In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”).


The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition.


While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states.


Employer Takeaways

  1. Understand State-Specific Protections: Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state.
  2. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence: General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job.
  3. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process.



If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.