In our modern world of a booming CBD industry and an increasing number of states that have legalized marijuana, can you terminate an employee for a positive drug test for marijuana? What if the test shows marijuana metabolites but you find out later it was a positive for CBD oil (a legal substance)? Does federal law protect an employee in any way in this scenario? In Rocchio v. E&B Paving, LLC, a federal district court in Indiana looked at this issue under the Americans with Disabilities Act and found no federal legal protection for the employee’s use of CBD oil.
E&B prohibited the use of illegal drugs at their workplace and based the policy on safety concerns. It used a third party to administer random tests. E&B had a zero tolerance policy and immediately terminated employees who tested positive. One of the prohibited drugs for which E&B tested was marijuana.
Employee John Rocchio’s number came up, he took his drug test, and the test revealed marijuana metabolites in his system. The third-party testing administrator notified E&B that Rocchio tested positive for marijuana, and E&B terminated his employment. The employee who recommended the termination relied on the report of a positive drug test. A straightforward example of prohibited conduct and consequences, right? Not so fast, said Rocchio.
Rocchio said he did not use marijuana, and the positive test was because he used CBD oil (also known as cannabinoid oil), a legally sold hemp extract. E&B relied on the drug test result rather than Rocchio’s plea of innocence and did not bring him back to work.
Rocchio filed a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that E&B violated the ADA by terminating him and not rehiring him. How was he disabled you ask? He argued that his employer “regarded” him as having a disability. The court found that even if Rocchio could prove that he was a qualified individual with a disability, he still could not prove he was terminated because of his disability and not the positive drug test.
Just because the ADA does not say employers can test for legal substances (like CBD oil), does not mean they can’t. According to the opinion, Rocchio argued:
Because the ADA explicitly permits covered entities to prohibit the use of illegal drugs and to test for the use of illegal drugs, 42 U.S.C.§ 12114(c)-(d), but does not explicitly permit bans of legal drugs or testing for legal drugs, it follows that “it violates the ADA” if an entity takes an adverse action against an employee who tests positive from the use of CBD oil, a legal substance.
Clever, but the court did not agree. As an initial matter, the court held the ADA’s lack of explicit permission for a company to ban the use of legal substances does not mean the ADA prohibits such a ban. As we all know, a company can terminate an employee for any reason, fair or unfair, as long as it is not illegal. Also, E&B was not testing for CBD oil — it was testing for marijuana. The court pointed out that Rocchio presented no evidence that E&B knew the positive test result was because of CBD oil rather than marijuana. The report from the third-party testing administrator reported marijuana metabolites — not CBD oil.
Now let’s get to the perceived disability claim:
Mr. Rocchio’s only evidence of discrimination is his argument that Defendants’ policy of terminating employees who test positive for drugs “categorically” “regards” them as users of illegal drugs and, because Defendants cite safety concerns as the rationale behind the policy, as having an impairment under the ADA.
Not so fast, said the court. First, just because E&B has a drug testing policy for safety reasons does not mean that it automatically believes every employee who tests positive has an impairment under the ADA. Even if E&B thought some employees who test positive will have an impairment, that does not mean it thinks all of them are impaired. Rocchio had to show that E&B thought he had an impairment. Second, an employer “does not have to tolerate unacceptable behavior” — like a positive test for illegal drugs — “even if that behavior is precipitated by an employee’s disability.” Finally, Rocchio had no other evidence of disability discrimination. Although two people (one an E&B employee) told him they were sorry to hear about his drug addiction, he had no evidence that those folks based the comments on anything other than “word of mouth” and speculation.
The court found no ADA violation and granted E&B’s motion for summary judgment.
This case raises interesting issues for employers. Rocchio says he was engaging in legal, off-duty behavior and it got him fired. This case suggests that if there is legal protection for him, it is not under the ADA. The facts that the court seemed to find most helpful for the employer were:
The employer did not target the employee for testing — it was random and a third-party administrator handled it.
The report to the employer was that the employee tested positive for marijuana metabolites. It never got a report about CBD oil or another legal substance.
The employer consistently terminated employees who tested positive.
So what can we learn from this case? Your drug test may report CBD oil as positive for marijuana. You may want to warn your employees about that potential. If you do not want to terminate CBD oil users, think about what steps you should take to avoid this scenario, perhaps by having CBD users disclose it before testing (like a prescription drug). Also, if you live in Indiana, this case is helpful. However, this may have ended differently in a state that has legalized marijuana and/or has a law protecting legal, off-duty conduct. Check your local laws to be sure.
About this Author
Anne Yuengert works with clients to manage their employees, including conducting workplace investigations of harassment or theft, training employees and supervisors, consulting on reductions in force and severance agreements, drafting employment agreements (including enforceable noncompetes) and handbooks, assessing reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and working through issues surrounding FMLA and USERRA leave. When preventive measures are not enough, she handles EEOC charges, OFCCP and DOL complaints and investigations, and has handled cases before arbitrators…
Will Manuel focuses his practice primarily on commercial and employment litigation. He has handled various disputes for both large and small businesses in both Mississippi and other jurisdictions.
Will’s clients include numerous manufacturers and commercial interests as well as various insurance and financial services companies. He has worked to defend these clients in both MDL litigation and individual actions brought in Mississippi. Will also has experience in advising businesses on issues involving age discrimination, sexual harassment and…
Whitt Steineker has devoted his legal career to representing companies that provide a wide range of goods and services. He provides clients of all types with litigation counsel, transactional advice, and practical strategies for growth. Whitt advises clients of all sizes—from multinational corporations to local businesses—in transactional and litigation matters in jurisdictions across the country and around the world.
As co-chair of Bradley’s Cannabis Industry team, Whitt represents clients on a wide range of cannabis issues. In addition to…
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.