Connecticut Court Approves Medical Marijuana User’s Employment Discrimination Claim

Connecticut Court Approves Medical Marijuana User’s Employment Discrimination Claim

A recent court ruling has added to the small but growing pile of jurisprudence at the intersection of marijuana legalization and labor law. In a decision handed down on September 5, a federal court in Connecticut found that Bride Brook, a federal contractor, had run afoul of that state’s Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) by rescinding a job offer to Katelin Noffsinger, a medical marijuana user, after she tested positive on a pre-employment drug test. The court granted summary judgment to Noffsinger but declined to award her attorney fees or punitive damages, Jackson Lewis attorney Kathryn J. Russo explains:

Bride Brook argued that its refusal to hire Noffsinger is allowed by an exception to PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision (when “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding”). It argued that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA) barred it from hiring Noffsinger because that law prohibits federal contractors from allowing employees to use illegal drugs. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. The court rejected Bride Brook’s argument, noting that the DFWA does not require drug testing and does not regulate employees who use illegal drugs outside of work while off-duty. …

Bride Brook also argued that it did not violate PUMA because it did not discriminate against Noffsinger based on her status as a medical marijuana user; rather, it had relied on the positive drug test result. The court dismissed this argument, concluding that acceptance would render a medical marijuana user’s protection under the statute a nullity.

While possession and sale of the drug remain illegal under federal law, as more states relax their prohibitions on either medical or recreational marijuana, this has created legal conundrums for employers, who must rethink their zero-tolerance drug policies lest they end up in the same situation as Bride Brook.

Read more

Connecticut Pay Equity Law Restricts Salary History Inquiries

Connecticut Pay Equity Law Restricts Salary History Inquiries

Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy signed a bipartisan bill into law on Tuesday that will restrict employers in the state from asking candidates for their salary histories, the CT Post reported:

Called the pay equity bill, the new law prevents employers from asking job candidates about their salary history before extending them an offer. Supporters say that question often results in lower starting pay for women and people of color. In 2016, Connecticut women made 79 cents on the dollar compared to men, according to the National Women’s Law Center. Over a lifetime, women made $529,160 less than their male counterparts, on average.

Connecticut’s new law leaves some questions unanswered for employers, Proskauer attorneys Allan Bloom and Laura Fant note in a more detailed overview of the ramifications for employers. The law permits employers to ask about “other elements of a prospective employee’s compensation structure” than wages, but not the value of those elements. The law does not define the scope of these other elements, however, so Connecticut businesses may seek clarification on this question from the state’s labor department.

With the signing of this law, which goes into effect January 1, Connecticut will becomes the sixth US state to ban salary history inquiries: Massachusetts was the first to do so in 2016 (though the effective date of that law has been delayed until July 1 of this year), followed by California, Delaware, Oregon, and most recently Vermont. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has also put forward a bill that would ban these inquiries. New Jersey’s recently-enacted equal pay law does not prohibit them, but makes it easier for employees to demonstrate pay discrimination in a lawsuit.

Read more