Delaware Judge Says Fired Medical Marijuana User Can Pursue Lawsuit


A Delaware judge has ruled that a medical marijuana user fired from his factory job after failing a drug test can pursue a lawsuit against his former employer.

Jeremiah Chance was fired in 2016 from his job as a yard equipment operator at the Kraft Heinz plant in Dover. He claims his termination violated an anti-discrimination provision contained in Delaware’s Medical Marijuana Act. Chance also claims he was targeted for retaliation after pointing out safety issues with the facility’s railroad ties.
The company argued that the anti-discrimination provisions of the laws in Delaware were previously banned from the Federal Controlled Substances Act, which defines cannabis as an illegal drug and does not include any exclusions for medical use.

In the first impression, the Supreme Court Judge Noel Primos decided Delaware’s medical marijuana law was not prevented by federal law.

Primos, medical marijuana law “does not require employers to participate in an illegal activity” instead of prohibiting discrimination based solely on the use of medical cannabis, “he said.

Primos also rejected the argument in the company’s decision to decide that the statute of medical cannabis is a tacit custom act that allows a citizen to file a lawsuit under the law. The judge stated that no state agency or commission was tasked with enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the laws, and that the medical marijuana cardholder who failed the drug test had no other choice than to a private case.

M The fact that an anti-discrimination provision is included in the DMMA is showing the legislative intention to resolve the problem of discrimination, Prim Primos said.

Kraft Heinz spokesman Michael Mullen said in an email that the company did not comment on the pending case.

The case comes as medical marijuana use, and complaints are rising in Delaware that employers are ill-treated by medical marijuana workers.

Chance’s attorney, Patrick Gallagher, said, pozitif Coming in succession, people who have the card and who try to end the people who know the card or who have tested positive for marijuana. Ch

According to his latest annual report, the State Office for Cannabis issued 6,625 credit cards in the 2018 fiscal year and increased 85 percent of the 3,588 cards issued the previous year. Of the cards issued last year, 4,389 were for new patients, more than twice the number of new patient cards issued in 2017 fiscal year.

According to the court records, Chance suffered from back problems and other ailments, which often led to medical permits, and in 2016 he received a medical marijuana card.

In August 2016, according to the case, Chance presented an incident report to Kraft Heinz management for unsafe railroad ties conditions at Dover. The next day, after talking to a maintenance supervisor and warehouse supervisor, Chance was running a wagon on the railroad tracks when it got off the track. After a few days of inadequate and a second test was asked to pass. After being told that he had taken the positive test, Chance reported to a medical reviewer that he had a medical marijuana card. He was fired after 10 days.

The firing of an employer on the basis of medical marijuana card holder status, or a cardholder who tested positive for marijuana, has been spoiled by cannabis unless it is used, owned or owned.

While allowing the case to continue, the judge refused Chance’s claim that the company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Delaware’s law on work safety for people with disabilities. He said there was no legal authority suggesting that a person with medical cannabis had ”disability” under state or federal laws.

For now, the judge refused to deny security claims that Chance claimed to be in retaliation for Delaware violating Whistleblowers’ Security Law. However, if he cannot provide evidence to support the allegations of chance, Kraft told Heinz that he could make a summary decision.

Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.