Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
April 22, 2024
Many states have enacted laws permitting the use of marijuana for certified medical purposes. How do you reconcile those laws, as well as laws prohibiting disability discrimination, with your drug-free workplace policies and practices? A recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision addressed these issues. Bartolotta v. Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc., AC 46091 (Conn. App. Ct. Mar. 19, 2024).
The Facts of the Case
Alyssa Bartolotta was a teaching assistant in a preschool classroom of approximately 20 students for Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. (New Britain). Bartolotta was prescribed medical marijuana to treat anxiety and seizures stemming from lifelong epilepsy. When New Britain hired Bartolotta in February 2018, Bartolotta did not disclose her medical condition,[1] prescription, or use of medical marijuana. However, she did sign off on New Britain’s employee handbook, which contained a drug-free workplace policy and policies that prohibited working under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In January 2019, Bartolotta called a child by the wrong name. When a teacher asked Bartolotta about the mistake, Bartolotta admitted to her medical marijuana use and that her “head is just not right from it yet.” The teacher reported the incident to New Britain and the school conducted an investigation.
During the investigation, Bartolotta admitted that she had been impaired at work because, the previous night, she had taken more “puffs” of marijuana than she was prescribed. Another teacher reported that she had observed Bartolotta “to be forgetful, droopy, and unsteady on her feet” and was concerned for the safety of the children.
Though Bartolotta provided New Britain with her medical marijuana card and a letter from her health care provider confirming that she had been prescribed marijuana for medical conditions, New Britain terminated Bartolotta’s employment. New Britain cited Bartolotta’s failure to follow company policy and procedures and her violation of the standard of care necessary to protect the children under her supervision.
Bartolotta Sues and the Trial Court Dismisses Her Claims
Bartolotta sued New Britain, alleging that it violated Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA), discriminated against her based on her disability, and failed to accommodate her disability. The trial court dismissed all of Bartolotta’s claims before trial. Bartolotta appealed.
The Appellate Court Affirms the Dismissal
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. In doing so, the appellate court rejected Bartolotta’s claim that New Britain violated PUMA, which prohibits employers from discharging or penalizing an employee “solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying” medical marijuana user. The Court noted that Bartolotta admitted to being impaired by marijuana while on the job. It further noted that New Britain did not prohibit Bartolotta’s medical marijuana use. Its policies simply prohibited her impairment while at work due to concerns for the children’s safety, which PUMA allowed it to do. Specifically, PUMA states, “[n]othing in [the law] 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.”
With respect to Bartolotta’s disability discrimination claims, the Court found that she could not show that her disability played a substantial role in New Britain’s decision to terminate her employment. Equally important, Bartolotta never made an accommodation request and, even if she had, “it is unclear what—if any—accommodation the defendant could make with respect to the plaintiff’s use of medical marijuana short of allowing her to appear impaired in the workplace.”
Employer Takeaways
Key to the Appellate Court’s decision were the facts that Bartolotta had admitted to being impaired at work, that coworkers witnessed her impairment, that Bartolotta worked in a safety-sensitive position, and that New Britain maintained policies that prohibited drug use/impairment in the workplace. Though the facts of this case primarily drove the Court’s decision, the Court did hold more broadly that employers do not have to allow medical marijuana users to be impaired while working and that terminating the employment of such an employee does not violate PUMA. Employers, take this time to ensure that your policies prohibit drug use at work and prohibit being under the influence of drugs while at work.
The author of this article, Patricia Tsipras, is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] Bartolotta did not disclose her epilepsy until she suffered her first seizure at work. Therefore, New Britain established a seizure action plan for Bartolotta and put several accommodations into place.
