EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION WAS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT
An employee had a private right of action under the Medical Marijuana Act against an employer who allegedly terminated the employee wrongfully. Because plaintiff was terminated for a reason that was specifically prohibited by law, the court held that she stated an adequate public policy reason in support of her wrongful discharge claim.
Plaintiff became employed as a medical assistant in January 2017. Because of a medical condition involving chronic pain, migraines and persistent fatigue, plaintiff was able to use medical marijuana. She disclosed this to her employer, and she was allegedly informed that this was not a problem. In early 2019, plaintiff applied for another position. She was required to undergo a drug test. Plaintiff reported that she was on medical marijuana at the time, and she provided a copy of her certification. After receiving notification that she was not allowed to work based on the results of her drug test, plaintiff filed this action against defendants for violation of the Medical Marijuana Act.
Defendants filed preliminary objections in which they argued that the MMA did not provide a private cause of action. Defendants argued that the Department of Health had the exclusive authority to enforce the MMA’s provisions, and an employee’s sole remedy for termination was to seek a civil penalty. Also, defendants asserted preliminary objections to plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim because she did not articulate a clear mandate of public policy that was violated by her discharge. Finally, defendants argued that plaintiff filed to state a claim for invasion of privacy.
Although the MMA granted broad administrative authority to the Department of Health, nothing in the statute or rules allowed the department or any other state agency to seek enforcement against an employer. The court held that the anti-discrimination provisions of the MMA would be meaningless if an aggrieved employee cold not pursue a private right of action against an employer for violations of the act. Although the act did not specifically provide for a private right of actions, it implied one. Legislative history indicated that the purpose of the act was to provide safe and effective access to medical marijuana for eligible patients, while protecting them from adverse employment actions. The court overruled this preliminary objection.
Because plaintiff was terminated for a reason that was expressly prohibited by the MMA, she identified a clear mandate of public policy that was implicated by her firing. Consequently, the court also overruled defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge.
Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claims for enforcement of an oral agreement or for invasion of privacy, so the court sustained defendants’ preliminary objections on those claims.
Ref: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 43 PLW 38, Tuesday, January 14, 2020, Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Sys., Inc., PICS Case No. 19-1525 (C.P. Lackawanna Nov. 22, 2019) (memorandum)
Kindly visit our Employment Law or Business Planning/Law websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia or Business Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia, at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.