Question

An Arizona woman was fired from her job for using medical marijuana, which was legally obtained for medical reasons related to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She is considering whether to sue her former employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and ADAAA. She had been in a serious car accident just over a year ago and the Jaws of Life were used to extricate her from her demolished vehicle. When she came out of her coma and after she was released from the hospital, she suffered from tremors and panic attacks. She informed her former employer before being hired that she had the required certification from her physician allowing her to purchase marijuana under her state’s voter-approved medical marijuana law and had a registration card for verification. The medical marijuana aids her in alleviating anxiety and keeping her in a calm state necessary for her to function steadily in any work she maintains. She does not use the substance during the work day, but uses it before she goes to work and at bedtime. She claims she does not sense the proverbial “high” that most people associate with smoking marijuana. She advised her former employer that if drug testing was required, she would test positive for the medical marijuana. The employer hired her anyway, leading the woman to believe that her use of medical marijuana was not an issue for the employer. The employer maintains the company has a zero-tolerance workplace. Within a month of her employment as a data entry clerk, she was randomly selected to be drug tested. Again, she advised her employer of her allowed medical marijuana use, and also informed the testing site lab where she signed a consent form to be tested. As expected and as she advised, she tested positive for marijuana and resultantly was terminated. She contacted the Human Resource Department to protest her termination claiming she should be given an ADA accommodation, but the HR representative informed her the company follows federal law in this regard to medical marijuana use because they conduct business with the federal government. Arizona treats employees using medical marijuana as a protected class. The woman is contemplating suing the company for wrongful termination and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADAAA, and violations of her state rights as a protected class employee under Arizona law. She believes she should be reinstated in a same or similar position with back pay and an accommodation given to excuse her from drug testing due to her medical disability, which interferes with basic and daily life and work-related activities unless she is able to take her prescribed medical marijuana.

the case study in a written report - including all its relevant topics - and include the following:

• Describe whether the requirements of disability eligibility under ADA and ADAAA are applicable in this circumstance, and discuss whether or not the woman has any valid claim and is entitled to any accommodation. Support your position using federal and state laws or statutes, including any legal cases on the matter.
• Evaluate whether or not the company has a valid defense. Support your position using federal or state laws or statutes, and include any legal cases on the matter.
• Analyze whether a reasonable accommodation is appropriate or inappropriate.
• Cite a minimum of two federal laws and one state law in addition to other sources that apply to this case study, and be sure to cite them correctly in the body of your paper as well as the References page.
• Recommend a conflict resolution process that can be used to solve the matter and avoid a lawsuit.

Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word report in the third-person voice.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines, and include headings to appropriately signal topics and keep your document organized.

Answer 1

KINDLY RATE THE ANSWER AS THUMBS UP. THANKS A LOT

ADA Accommodation for Medical Marijuana

There are many unknown disabilities that the bare eye cannot detect. A woman is contemplating suing the company for wrongful termination and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADAAA, and violations of her state rights as a protected class employee under Arizona law. She believes she should be reinstated in a same or similar position with back pay and an accommodation given to excuse her from drug testing due to her medical disability, which interferes with basic and daily life and work-related activities unless she is able to take her prescribed medical marijuana.

Recommend a conflict resolution process that can be used to solve the matter and avoid a lawsuit.

Describe whether the requirements of disability eligibility under ADA and ADAAA are applicable in this circumstance, and discuss whether or not the woman has any valid claim and is entitled to any accommodation. Support your position using federal and state laws or statutes, including any legal cases on the matter.

Per the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual regarding job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2014, Chapter 13, pg. 585).Medical marijuana is a qualified as a protected class under the act so the Arizona woman is entitled to accommodation for her medical marijuana. A reasonable accommodation should be provided to the individual's disability as long as it does not place an undue burden or hardship on the employer (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2014, Chapter 13, pg. 605). Due to the fact the woman explained her situation to her employer before she was hired for employment and provided her voter-approved medical marijuana registration card. This should entitle her for accommodation by the employer to reasonably accommodate her use of medical marijuana; her drug testing should only be to determine if she was using additional drugs during employment. If the woman is not using marijuana during business hours she should still be considered to adhere to the zero tolerance company drug policy. Since there was no evidence that her marijuana use was affecting her work her drug test should have overlooked her positive test for marijuana.

In 2008, President Barack Obama had signed the ADAAA Act of 2008 that gave definition to what was considered disabled.   In this case the Arizona woman was suffering from a mental illness which allowed her to qualify for medical marijuana. According to "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" (n.d.), “expands the definition of "major life activities" by including two non-exhaustive lists: the first list includes many activities that the EEOC has recognized (e.g., walking) as well as activities that EEOC has not specifically recognized (e.g., reading, bending, and communicating);the second list includes major bodily functions (e.g., "functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions"); (Notice Concerning The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008).

In this case the Arizona woman suffers from PTSD and has been declared disabled by the state of Arizona. Since she only used marijuana on an as need bases and didn’t use the drug during work hours, she should be treated as if she isn’t using an illegal substance and is following the no tolerance drug culture established by the company. The state of Arizona allows the use of marijuana to help with conditions like PTSD that the woman is suffering from.

Evaluate whether or not the company has a valid defense. Support your position using federal or state laws or statutes, and include any legal cases on the matter.

The employer of the Arizona women, stated that the company acts under the Federal Government laws due to their business being with the Federal Government itself. As long as the employer has clearly communicated (which it did) and enforced the policy (which it did) the employer can likely legally terminate an employee for his or her use of marijuana. The reason for this is the fact that marijuana use is still illegal under federal law. The HR department stated that the company does business with the federal government so therefore it operates under the federal laws for such issues. “Section 12111(6) of the ADA exempts drugs taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional from the definition of “illegal use of drugs.” Prescription drugs do merit protection under the ADA, but medical marijuana is not classified as a prescription medicine. Also, the employee is not protected under ADA because the ADA states “that a person currently using illegal drugs is not a qualified individual with a disability and thus is not protected by the ADA.” In addition to the use, the testing for illegal drug is not considered a form of medical examination. Therefore, the use of medical marijuana does not include the use of drugs “taken under supervision by a medical health care professional” Lastly the employer has a valid case to terminate the Arizona women with the simple fact that the company recognizes federal law and is acting on behalf of those laws in the workplace.

Recommend a conflict resolution process that can be used to solve the matter and avoid a lawsuit.

The company would need to outline and define their guidelines, with the company policy from state laws that would adhere to the use of Medical Marijuana at the workplace. These steps would assist and resolve any conflict that an employee would have with the company and any potential lawsuit. First the company would need to familiarize themselves with the states Marijuana Statues/Laws. State statues vary in their terminology and scope of their laws however, most states allow for access to medical marijuana but only through a registration or ID card. ("Medical Marijuana And The Workplace: What Employers Need To Know Now", n.d ). This means that the employee would need to obtain some form of identification and need to obtain physician authorization to use, obtain and grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. ("Medical Marijuana And The Workplace: What Employers Need To Know Now", n.d )

Conclusion

There are twenty-three states that has legalized marijuana, some may vary in criteria and are circumstantial under federal law. The woman has cause to sue her employer because she was blatantly discriminated. Arizona is one of eight states that require accommodation for marijuana users that are medically registered. “An employer cannot take an adverse action against an employee simply because of his or her participation in a recognized medical marijuana program.” (SHRM) In this case, the employer should have verified participation in the medical marijuana program and supported her accommodations. To avoid this in the future, employers should get more familiar with accommodations in their state that recognizes registered medical marijuana users. Although employers have been winning cases in this matter, it will soon change.