Connecticut: Updated Guidance for Employers on Marijuana
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in CT |
EFFECTIVE March 19, 2024 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
In Bartolotta v. Human Resources of New Britain, Inc., the Connecticut Appellate Court said that an employer has the right to terminate an employee who is impaired on the job by medical marijuana. The Court also provided the basis on which an employer can require a drug test due to suspecting impairment. Here, the plaintiff was a teacher who lawfully held a prescribed medical marijuana card but did not disclose it during the hiring process. The school employing her had written policies which prohibited employees from working under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A fellow teacher noticed the plaintiff calling a child by the wrong name and confronted the plaintiff. The plaintiff told the other teacher she was “out of it” and that she uses medical marijuana and was currently impaired. The teacher then reported the plaintiff to a supervisor who suspended the plaintiff without pay and directed her to drug testing. Since a week had passed between the date of impairment and the drug test, the test came back negative for marijuana. Nevertheless, the school terminated the plaintiff since she admitted to being impaired by marijuana in violation of the drug and alcohol policy.
Impairment and Medical Marijuana
The plaintiff relied on Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) in order to state she was wrongfully terminated. PUMA protects holders of medical marijuana from terminating solely for being prescribed a medical marijuana card. The Court ruled the plaintiff could not rely on this protection since the plaintiff admitted to being impaired while working and also acknowledged that impairment could place children under her care at risk. The Court further found that the school suspended the plaintiff for the impairment before finding out about the plaintiff’s medical marijuana card. Therefore, the employer’s termination of the employee was lawful and not in violation of PUMA.
Reasonable Suspicion of Impairment
Under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51x, employers can require drug tests only if there is a reasonable suspicion of impairment affecting job performance. “Reasonable suspicion” is not defined in the statute, but the Court provided guidance on determining the appropriate standard. To have reasonable suspicion, the employer must have specific, articulable facts that would lead an objective reasonable person having such information to reach the same level of suspicion. The Court cited the following as objective evidence for reasonable suspicion: (1) the plaintiff had been observed by at least two witnesses acting “forgetful, droopy, and unsteady on her feet” during several weeks prior to the incident; (2) the plaintiff specifically admitted medical marijuana use to a colleague on that date and during the resulting investigation; (3) the plaintiff specifically admitted to using medical marijuana on a nightly basis and said she had consumed “too much” the night before the incident; (4) the plaintiff acknowledged that she had “messed up.” Together these separate pieces added up to the level of reasonable suspicion required under the statutes for drug testing.
Under this ruling, employers still have the right to enforce drug and alcohol policies for those who lawfully hold medical marijuana cards in Connecticut. Employers should make certain their policies allow for reasonable suspicion testing and train appropriate personnel on the requirements for determining reasonable suspicion.
Action Items
- Review and update drug and alcohol policies.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2024 ManagEase