With a ruling that could significantly change the business and regulatory landscape in the medical marijuana field, the Florida First District Court of Appeals has determined that certain provisions of the Florida Medical Marijuana Statute are unconstitutional.

Constitutional and Statutory Conflicts

In January 2017, an amendment to the Florida Constitution went into effect to protect the right to produce, possess and use medical marijuana. Patients that qualified to receive medical marijuana could obtain it from a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (“MMTC”).


Continue Reading

Dan Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law blog posted yesterday about an interesting medical marijuana case in Connecticut. For the first time, a Connecticut court ruled that an employer could not refuse to hire an applicant simply because she was a medical marijuana user, despite the employer’s drug-free workplace program. This applicant, who used medical marijuana for PTSD, had her offer revoked after she tested positive for marijuana on the pre-employment drug screen. She then sued for discrimination. In ruling for the applicant, the court focused on the anti-discrimination provision in Connecticut’s medical marijuana law:

[U]nless required by federal law or required to obtain funding: . . . (3) No employer may refuse to hire a person or may discharge, penalize or threaten an employee solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver under sections 21a-408 to 21a-408n, inclusive. Nothing in this subdivision shall restrict an employer’s ability to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances during work hours or restrict an employer’s ability to discipline an employee for being under the influence of intoxicating substances during work hours.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-408p(b)(3) (emphasis added).

Does this decision have any impact on Florida employers?


Continue Reading