Jeremiah Chance v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., (C.A. No. K18C-01-056 – Decided Dec. 17, 2018)

Delaware Medical Marijuana Act not preempted by federal law and allows private right of action to enforce its non-discrimination provision.

In this case of first impression, the issues were whether: (1) the Delaware Medical Marijuana Act (DMMA), specifically its anti-discrimination provision, was in conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and is thus preempted; and (2) whether a private right of action to enforce the non-discrimination provision is implied in the DMMA. Delaware is one of only nine states that explicitly bars employers from firing or refusing to hire an employee who uses medical marijuana in compliance with the requirements of state law.

On the first issue, the CSA regulates the possession and use of certain drugs, including marijuana, and classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance and does not currently allow any exceptions for medical use. The DMMA expressly authorizes the distribution, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes, and it explicitly prohibits employers from disciplining employees who use marijuana for medical reasons and who fail drug tests because of it.

The court concluded that the federal law does not preempt the DMMA since employers in Delaware are not required to participate in an illegal activity, instead, it merely prohibits them from discriminating based upon medical marijuana use.

On the second issue, the court took note that the DMMA does not provide any agency or commission with the task of enforcing the anti-discrimination provision. The court reasoned that no remedy other than a private right of action is available to cardholders and qualifying marijuana patients who are terminated or discharged from employment for failing drug tests. Therefore, the court concluded that the language of the statute creates an implied right of action for medical marijuana users to file suit alleging a violation of the non-discrimination provision.

Even though the plaintiff in this case was not a workers’ compensation claimant, this case is very likely to have applicability to workers’ compensation cases given the increasing number of claimants who are becoming medical marijuana users under the DMMA. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2019

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.