Royal

U.S. District Court Rejects Efforts to Overturn OSH Case by Employer

June 22, 2023

The U.S. District Court has rejected the notion that a ruling in 2022 be overturned by the Defendants in a workplace safety case.



Where a jury found that the employer company and the supervisor (Defendants) violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) by retaliating against an employee (Plaintiff) after he suffered a workplace injury, that verdict should not be overturned despite the employer’s argument that (1) there is insufficient evidence to establish that the employee engaged in protected conduct; (2) the verdict resulted from prejudicial errors in the jury instructions; and (3) the exclusion of certain evidence relating to the employee’s arrest record was prejudicial.


On June 21, 2022, the jury found that the Defendants violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Now, the Defendants seek to overturn this verdict.


The Defendants present three reasons for overturning the jury’s verdict. First, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the Defendants engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of Section 11(c) of the OSH Act. … Second, the Defendants contend that the jury’s verdict resulted from prejudicial errors in the instructions the Court gave the jury. … Third, the Defendants claim that the Court’s exclusion of certain evidence relating to the Plaintiff’s arrest record was prejudicial.


The Court already explained, in a sealed decision, why it would not allow all the evidence that the Defendants sought to admit. While the Court would not allow particular details of prior arrests into evidence for a variety of reasons, it did allow general references to the Plaintiff’s arrest record.…that logic still applies. The Defendants maintain that the ‘nature of the arrests … was why law enforcement needed so badly to detain Plaintiff,’ and therefore its exclusion was prejudicial. … But the motivation behind law enforcement’s actions were not at issue at trial — the Defendants’ action was. Moreover, while the Defendants cursorily suggest that the excluded evidence was relevant to ‘why the supervisor did what he did,’ Defendants elicited no such testimony from the supervisor even when they had the opportunity to do so during trial. The supervisor was free to testify that Plaintiff’s arrest record affected his decision to facilitate Plaintiff’s May 2017 arrest. He did not.


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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways 1. Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. 2. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. 3. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process . If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: