Quick Hits

• A Pennsylvania federal court ruled that medical marijuana use does not qualify as a disability under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), allowing dismissal of a related discrimination claim.
• The court did allow a claim under the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) for unlawful refusal to hire, indicating potential protections for medical marijuana cardholders against employment discrimination.

On March 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville dismissed a disability discrimination claim by a job applicant alleging that a Cleveland-based construction company failed to accommodate his medical marijuana use in violation of the antidiscrimination provisions of the PHRA when it rescinded a job offer following a preemployment drug screen.

The judge stated he was “constrained” by the 2020 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision in Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) v. Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission, which held the PHRA does not require accommodation of an individual’s legal medical marijuana use because it is not a qualified disability.

However, Judge Colville allowed the job applicant’s claim for unlawful refusal to hire under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), finding he sufficiently alleged that the job offer could have been unlawfully rescinded on the basis of his status as a medical marijuana cardholder.

Background

The plaintiff, Brian Davis, alleged that Albert M. Higley Company, LLC, had made a job offer for a project engineer position contingent on a pre-employment drug screen, the results of which were not disclosed. Davis alleged that he was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and was certified to use medical marijuana to treat the conditions along with other prescription drugs.

The company had requested that he provide a letter from his physician with estimates of his levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that would result from his medical marijuana prescription, and certifications that his prescribed amount would not impair him sufficiently to prevent him from driving or prevent him from “conduct[ing] safety sensitive career tasks in the construction industry such as climbing ladders, walking on scaffolding, etc.”

Davis did not provide such a letter but proposed to sign an agreement that he would refrain from using during business hours or at times when he would be impaired during work hours. The company then informed Davis that it was formally rescinding the job offer.

PHRA—Failure to Accommodate Disability

The PHRA makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to hire or employ, or otherwise discriminate in employment against an individual based on a “non-job related handicap or disability” if the employee could complete the job requirements with reasonable accommodation.

Judge Colville dismissed Davis’s claim for disability discrimination under the PHRA based on the Commonwealth Court’s decision in HACC. In that case, the Commonwealth Court noted that marijuana is still illegal under federal law, defined as a Schedule I controlled substance with no accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Ultimately, the court ruled that a nursing student who requested a reasonable accommodation to use legally prescribed medical marijuana was not a qualified individual with a disability under the PHRA.

While Judge Colville recognized that the federal district court was not bound by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s ruling in HACC, he found the case was persuasive since it was “factually analogous” and addressed the same issue “in depth,” despite being the context of a student seeking an accommodation to continue a post-secondary education program.

MMA—Failure to Hire

However, the judge said Davis had sufficiently alleged a claim that the company refused to hire him on the basis of his status as a medical marijuana cardholder, at least sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The company had argued the MMA only protects individuals from adverse employment action when the action is based solely on the individual’s status as a medical marijuana cardholder. The company argued that the decision was also based on Davis’s admitted allegations “that he could not—or would not— provide” the requested letter and certifications from his physician.

But Judge Colville said this “advances an overly restrictive reading of the MMA” that would render the law’s protections for medical marijuana cardholders useless, as individuals could face adverse employment actions for lawful use outside of work.

“As a practical matter, it seems to this Court that the MMA would be quite toothless if it only protected an employee’s ability to possess a medical marijuana card, rather than the employee’s ability to take the prescription medication that the card authorizes the individual to use,” Judge Colville said.

Next Steps

Judge Colville’s ruling provides key guidance for employers on the contours of Pennsylvania’s employment protections for medical marijuana use. Notably, Judge Colville followed the Commonwealth Court’s HACC holding that legal medical marijuana use does not qualify as a disability that must be reasonably accommodated under Pennsylvania law. However, the HACC holding came in the context of higher education and not employment. Notably, several other courts in Pennsylvania have allowed PHRA disability discrimination claims involving medical marijuana cardholders to proceed.

However, regardless of whether medical marijuana use is a protected disability, Judge Colville’s decision confirms that job applicants and employees still have a right of action under the MMA. The decision found that the MMA’s protection for medical marijuana card status contemplates that the cardholder will use medical marijuana outside of work, suggesting employers may not be able to refuse to hire an applicant with medical marijuana card status simply based on a preemployment drug screen.

Employers may want to review their drug testing and accommodations policies with regard to medical marijuana cardholders in Pennsylvania. Further, while the recent decision suggests that medical marijuana use is not a disability, employers may want to consider whether to engage in the interactive process with employees seeking accommodations for medical marijuana use.