A federal court has granted United States Steel Corporation’s motion for summary judgment in a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by a former employee who was fired after testing positive for marijuana, ruling that the worker was not a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to his use of medical cannabis.
The court held that J.C., a utility technician with the company from 2000 to 2021, could not pursue his ADA claims because federal law still classifies marijuana use as illegal—even when used with a state-issued prescription for medical reasons.
“Medical marijuana ‘is an illegal use of drugs for purposes of the ADA,’” the court stated, quoting a decision from the Ninth Circuit.
Altercation led to drug testing, termination
The case stems from a workplace incident on Nov. 15, 2021, when J.C. got into a verbal altercation with a co-worker. Following the exchange, both were directed to undergo drug testing.
During the process, J.C. disclosed to both a union representative and the nurse administering the test that he was likely to test positive for THC because he used medical marijuana to manage anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder.
After the test, J.C. was temporarily suspended and later fired following multiple disciplinary notices. His test result was reported as “non-negative.” He was also accused of failing to comply with security instructions and leaving company property without permission during the testing process.
An internal review conducted by a labor relations representative included audio recordings, written reports, drug test results, and surveillance footage of J.C.’s vehicle being removed from the parking lot by his wife. The company concluded that termination was appropriate.
ADA claim rejected due to marijuana use
J.C. sued under several statutes, including the ADA, arguing that his use of medical marijuana—legal under Pennsylvania law—was related to his disability and that his termination amounted to unlawful discrimination.
But the court ruled that individuals terminated for marijuana use, even if prescribed under state law, are not protected under the ADA. It cited the ADA’s exclusion of “current illegal drug use” from its definition of a “qualified individual.”
“Employees properly prescribed marijuana in compliance with Pennsylvania law, who then experience adverse employment determinations based on that use, are not qualified individuals contemplated at 42 U.S.C. § 12101,” the court said, again quoting precedent.
No evidence employer knew of disability
J.C. also argued that the employer discriminated against him based on the underlying conditions for which he was prescribed marijuana. While the court accepted that J.C. had a qualifying disability under the ADA and could perform the essential duties of his job, it found that he failed to establish a key requirement of a discrimination claim: that his employer was aware of his disability at the time of termination.
The court emphasized that “a showing of awareness would be the most fundamental element” in establishing a causal link between a disability and an adverse employment decision. In this case, it noted, “the person who made the decision to terminate his employment did not know about his medical marijuana card.”
Because of this lack of awareness, the court found that J.C. could not establish the third prong of the test for proving ADA discrimination—that the termination occurred “as a result” of the disability.
Failure to accommodate claim also dismissed
The court also rejected J.C.’s separate claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, concluding that he never made an accommodation request during his employment.
To support a failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show that the employer knew of the disability and that a request for accommodation was made. The court found that “the uncontested factual record shows that Plaintiff did not request an accommodation,” and that any request made after the termination was legally insufficient.
“An accommodation request must be made ‘on the job,’ not after the fact,” the court said, referencing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance.
State claims dismissed without prejudice
In addition to his federal claims under the ADA, J.C. had filed claims under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act and Human Relations Act. With the dismissal of the ADA claims, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice, allowing J.C. the option to pursue them in state court.
The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between state medical marijuana laws and federal employment protections. Although Pennsylvania law permits the use of medical marijuana, the ADA does not recognize it, leaving employees vulnerable to termination if they test positive—even with a valid prescription.
For more information, see the full ruling.
