New Jersey\u2019s attorney general took legal action this week against an employer who allegedly violated state law by discriminating against a medical marijuana patient by rescinding a job offer after he tested positive for THC.<\/p>\n
\u201cNew Jersey\u2019s civil rights laws require that employers discuss how to develop accommodations that will allow employees with disabilities to perform their duties,\u201d Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D) said in a statement. \u201cBut this employer cut off all communication, refusing to even try to work with their candidate. Their failure to act violates the law, and we will not tolerate that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Platkin\u2019s office said on Tuesday that its Division on Civil Rights issued a finding of probable cause against Delaware-based Prince Telecom. The finding is a precursor to prosecution, though first the case will go to conciliation, where the parties have a chance to settle the matter voluntarily.<\/p>\n
The case arose after a job applicant at Prince Telecom completed a drug screening in October 2020. Several days later, according to the finding of probable cause, a human resources representative told him the test came back positive and that Prince was rescinding the job offer.<\/p>\n
In response, the applicant told the company he was a registered medical marijuana patient.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy failed drug test is due to a medical condition which I explained to the medical and testing facility,\u201d he said, according to the five-page complaint. \u201cI believe there are protections afforded me under law. I have never been in this situation before. So, I don\u2019t know what to do at this point. Can someone please reach out to discuss?\u201d<\/p>\n
The company\u2019s representative allegedly didn\u2019t respond. About a week afterward, the applicant spoke with the HR director, who allegedly said a second drug test would be necessary. The applicant said that test would also likely come back positive, \u201cbecause he uses medical marijuana for a medical condition,\u201d the AG\u2019s finding says.<\/p>\n
At that point, the company allegedly stopped responding entirely, ignoring a separate letter to Prince\u2019s chairman as well as a later follow-up text message.<\/p>\n
Prince later told New Jersey\u2019s Division on Civil Rights that reasonable accommodations for the applicant would be impossible, writing that the cable installation technician position for which he\u2019d been offered a job \u201cis a safety-sensitive position in which the safety risks are further heightened because technicians work alone and are not supervised in the field.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no reasonable accommodation that would enable Claimant to perform the essential functions of his job,\u201d the company argued. \u201cThe only possible accommodations would be to eliminate essential job functions or to pay two technicians to do the job of one, neither of which is reasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the new finding, however, the director of the Division on Civil Rights said there\u2019s nevertheless probable cause to believe that Prince Telecom violated anti-discrimination protections.<\/p>\n
The state\u2019s medical marijuana law \u201cdoes make clear that its provisions \u2018shall not be construed to permit a person to,\u2019 among other things, \u2018operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any vehicle, aircraft, railroad train, stationary heavy equipment or vessel while under the influence of marijuana,\u201d the finding document acknowledges. But the statute also \u201cmakes it \u2018unlawful to take any adverse employment action against an employee who is a registered qualifying patient based solely on the employee\u2019s status as a registrant\u2019 with the Cannabis Regulatory Commission.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both the state\u2019s general Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the state\u2019s specific cannabis-related laws provide certain employment protections to medical marijuana patients.<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, there is sufficient evidence to credit Complainant\u2019s allegation that Respondent failed to accommodate his disability in violation of LAD,\u201d says the finding of probable cause. \u201cThere is also sufficient evidence to credit Complainant\u2019s allegation that Respondent refused to hire Complainant based on disability.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn short, Respondent summarily determined that Complainant\u2019s disability\u2014and the treatment for his disability\u2014automatically disqualified him from employment,\u201d the document continues, noting that the company never provided evidence that the applicant regularly used marijuana during the day. \u201cAccordingly, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent refused to hire Complainant based on disability.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sundeep Iyer, director of the AG office\u2019s Division on Civil Rights, said in a statement that the agency is committed \u201cto ensuring that all employers are aware of their obligations under the law.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOur laws provide strong protections against discrimination based on disability. Those protections mean that employers can\u2019t discriminate against employees based on their treatment for a disability, including their use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the symptoms of a disability,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The press release<\/a> from Platkin\u2019s office notes that not only LAD but also the state\u2019s medical and adult-use cannabis laws protect job applicants from discrimination.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder the Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act, employers cannot take adverse employment action against an employee based on the fact that the employee is registered as a medical marijuana user with the Cannabis Regulatory Commission,\u201d it says. \u201cAnd under the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), an employee or applicant cannot be subject to adverse action by an employer solely due to a positive drug test for cannabis.\u201d<\/p>\n Platkin\u2019s office noted, however, that CREAMMA was passed after the incident involving Prince Telecom, meaning it does not apply in the current dispute.<\/p>\n The attorney general has taken a comparatively bold approach to protecting employment protections for legal cannabis users in New Jersey. In 2022, Platkin told law enforcement officials statewide<\/span> that state law does not allow them to fire police officers who use cannabis off duty\u2014a decision that led to a lawsuit from local Jersey City officials<\/a>. A police union has asked for the suit to be dismissed, called it \u201cpure hogwash.\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Platkin revised that guidance the following year, generally barring screenings for marijuana in most circumstances<\/a> following the state\u2019s enactment of legalization.<\/span><\/p>\n Last November, meanwhile, a separate lawsuit from two Jersey City police officers who were fired for testing positive for marijuana<\/a> claimed that the city\u2019s policy of punishing law enforcement for off-duty cannabis use is merely an effort by Mayor Steven M. Fulop (D) to \u201cwin over more conservative voters needed for his gubernatorial campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n Back in 2019, a former Amazon warehouse employee filed suit against the corporate behemoth, alleging that he was terminated after testing positive for THC and subsequently requesting a disability accommodation<\/a> for his anxiety disorder to allow him to use cannabis in accordance with state law.<\/p>\n Read the full finding of probable cause<\/a> against Prince Telecom below:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n U.S. Supreme Court Sends Marijuana And Gun Case Back To Lower Court, Emboldening DOJ\u2019s Defense Of Firearm Ban<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post New Jersey AG Says Company Illegally Discriminated Against Medical Marijuana Patient By Rescinding Job Offer<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
New Jersey\u2019s attorney general took legal action this week against an employer who allegedly violated state law by discriminating against a medical marijuana patient by rescinding a job offer after he tested positive for THC. \u201cNew Jersey\u2019s civil rights laws require that employers discuss how to develop accommodations that willContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76713"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76713"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76714,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76713\/revisions\/76714"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: New Jersey AG Says Company Illegally Discriminated Against Medical Marijuana Patient By Rescinding Job Offer<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"