Royal

Medical Marijuana and the Workplace

April 24, 2023

The landscape surrounding the use of marijuana is ever changing as of late. Each state currently has different laws regarding the use of medical and recreational marijuana. Although your state may have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, it remains illegal at the Federal level. This poses a challenge for employers, especially those with locations and employees in separate states.


Today, employers are permitted to make rules prohibiting drug and alcohol use in the workplace. Employers do not have to tolerate on-site drug and alcohol use in general. When it comes to off-site use, there are limited accommodations that are required to be granted for alcohol and drug use in relation to disabilities. Off-site medical marijuana use is one of those exceptions.


In Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that an employee who uses medical marijuana may claim handicap discrimination against an employer for failing to waive mandatory drug testing for marijuana use absent an undue hardship to the employer’s business. (Note that the use of medical and recreational marijuana is legal in Massachusetts)


In Barbuto, an employee with Crohn’s disease was fired for a positive marijuana test following urine testing mandated by their employer. The employee had a medical marijuana card and requested accommodation of off-site use of marijuana for her disability.


The court held that an employee who uses medicinal marijuana off site and in a manner that does not interfere with job responsibilities cannot be terminated.


The Barbuto decision does not apply to on or off-site use of recreational marijuana. The employee was able to prevail because they were using medical marijuana for an underlying disability: Crohn’s disease.


Employers can still discipline/terminate employees who use recreational marijuana, whether on- or off-site. However, there are states that have prohibited employees being treated adversely for any marijuana use, including California and Washington D.C. You may start to see the laws in some New England states change to conform with these states. Be careful to stay abreast of any changes in the law.


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.

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  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.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: