Articles by Our Attorneys

As medical marijuana becomes legal in an increasing number of states, employers are facing new challenges when it comes to managing the use of medical marijuana by employees in safety-sensitive job roles. In Pennsylvania, employers may be particularly impacted by this issue as the state has legalized medical marijuana use. As a lawyer who works with employers in Pennsylvania, I have seen the complexities that can arise when medical marijuana is used by employees in safety-sensitive positions.

Under Pennsylvania law, employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace. However, employers must be careful when conducting drug tests and when disciplining employees for marijuana use. Significantly, medical marijuana users are protected under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) against discrimination and retaliation by their employers.

One of the biggest challenges facing employers seems to be how to balance the needs of employees who use medical marijuana with the need to maintain a safe workplace. While medical marijuana may be legal and prescribed by a doctor, it can impair a person’s ability to perform certain job duties. This is particularly true for employees in safety-sensitive job roles, such as those in transportation, healthcare, and law enforcement.

To address this issue, employers should develop policies that balance the rights of employees to use medical marijuana with the need to maintain a safe workplace. Employers should consider implementing drug testing policies that account for medical marijuana use, and they should also provide training to managers and supervisors on how to identify impairment and respond appropriately. 

Employers also should be mindful of their potential obligations to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who use medical marijuana under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state disability laws. This may include allowing employees to use medical marijuana outside of work hours or transferring the employee to a non-safety-sensitive position if one is available. However, employers are not required to make accommodations that would pose an undue hardship on the business or would compromise safety.

In addition, employers should be aware of the specific legal protections afforded to medical marijuana users under the Pennsylvania MMA. Employers should avoid taking adverse employment actions against employees based solely on their status as medical marijuana users. Instead, employers should focus on job performance and take appropriate action if an employee’s use of medical marijuana interferes with their ability to perform their job safely and effectively.

The bottom line?  By developing clear policies, providing training to managers, and making reasonable accommodations, employers can balance the needs of employees with the need to maintain a safe workplace. Employers should also stay up to date on the latest legal developments in this area and, of course, seek legal guidance when necessary.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.

In May of 2023, significant decisions in Pennsylvania federal courts yielded one of the largest wage and hour verdicts in history, and two significant medical marijuana decisions – one favoring the employee, and one favoring the employer.  To find out more, the details are below.

Philadelphia Federal Court delivers Largest FLSA Verdict in History against PA Company.

A federal jury in Pennsylvania has awarded a $22 million verdict to the U.S. Department of Labor in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit filed against East Penn Manufacturing Co. The verdict, which represents the largest in FLSA history, supports the claims of 7,500 workers who alleged that the company denied them overtime pay. The DOL intends to seek liquidated damages equal to the verdict amount and an injunction mandating future FLSA compliance from East Penn. The trial, presided over by U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, lasted for 30 days. The DOL argued that the employees were not compensated for over eight hours of work, which included time spent on putting on protective gear and showering to mitigate workplace hazards. The jury’s decision is viewed as a significant victory for the workers and a reminder for employers to comply with labor laws. East Penn nevertheless deemed the verdict a favorable outcome, emphasizing that the jury rejected the majority of the government’s total wage claim that was asserted.

Steel Co. unable to avoid Medical Marijuana Discrimination Suit despite Expired MMA Card

In a Pennsylvania federal court ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson rejected a steelmaker’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit filed by an engineer and medical marijuana patient. The engineer, John DellaVecchio, claimed that the company, Cleveland Cliffs Steel LLC, rescinded a job offer after he failed a drug test. Despite his expired medical marijuana card, Judge Baylson determined that DellaVecchio’s claims are protected by state law, which safeguards the medicinal use of marijuana.

Cleveland Cliffs argued that they withdrew the job offer because DellaVecchio’s medical marijuana card had expired at the time of the positive drug test. However, Judge Baylson stated that the company did not cite the expired card as the reason for termination. Instead, a representative mentioned the positive test result. The judge emphasized that the company discriminated against DellaVecchio, who had a valid prescription for medical marijuana and had renewed his card.

DellaVecchio initiated the lawsuit against Cleveland Cliffs, the largest flat-rolled steel company in North America, in December 2022. He asserted that he had accepted an associate engineer position in May 2022 and had informed the company about his medical marijuana certification during the onboarding process.

Judge Baylson noted that DellaVecchio’s valid medical marijuana card, which was renewed before the job offer was revoked, had been sent to the company. The judge inferred that DellaVecchio was discriminated against based on his status as a medical marijuana cardholder, thus suggesting a violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (PMMA).

Cleveland Cliffs also argued that the PMMA does not explicitly grant the right to sue for violations. However, Judge Baylson concluded that the legislature intended to establish a private right of action under the PMMA:  “Absent direct guidance from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it is reasonable for this court to predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule in agreement with the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the two decisions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,” Judge Baylson wrote.  “As such, this court finds that the legislature intended to create a private right of action under the PMMA,” the judge added.  Consequently, Judge Baylson’s ruling denies Cleveland Cliffs’ motion to dismiss and indicates that DellaVecchio’s case can proceed, potentially allowing him to seek $150,000 in damages and other forms of relief.

The case is John DellaVecchio v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., case number 2:22-cv-04932, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Third Circuit upholds termination after failed drug test for TCH where Employee failed to comply with reporting requirements of workplace police.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former Toshiba employee, Cherie Lehenky, who claimed she was wrongfully terminated after testing positive for THC, which she used to treat her disability. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Lehenky failed to demonstrate that Toshiba’s drug-free policy unfairly targeted individuals with disabilities.

Toshiba has a drug-free workplace policy, the panel said, under which no employee can be found to be under the influence of any illegal drug or alcohol while on duty. The policy also states that the company will conduct random drug testing and that any positive test will result in termination.  The policy further states that if an employee is taking a drug while at work, they need to inform the company of the drug, dosage and the prescription from an authorized doctor, or it will otherwise be treated as an illegal drug.

The panel found that Lehenky did not comply with the company’s policy, in that Lehenky did not report her TCH use consistent with those requirements.  Rather, when selected for random drug testing in 2019, she warned a human resources employee that she may test positive for THC due to the over-the-counter supplement she took.  When her test returned positive for THC, Lehenky said she was terminated.  Lehenky, who had been employed by Toshiba for 18 years, stated that she used CBD oil derived from hemp to alleviate symptoms of her inflammatory autoimmune disease.

The panel clarified that Toshiba’s drug-free workplace policy applies to all employees and does not place a higher burden on individuals with disabilities. As Lehenky did not demonstrate that she was fired because of her disability or that Toshiba was aware of her condition, her claims of disparate impact and disparate treatment were dismissed.

The case is Cherie Lehenky v. Toshiba America Energy Systems Corp., case number 22-1475, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.

In my experience handing workplace harassment cases, I have seen firsthand the damage that these types of claims can cause to both employees and employers. To avoid such claims, it is crucial for employers to take proactive measures to prevent harassment in the workplace.

Here are some basic steps that employers can take to prevent workplace harassment:

• Establish clear policies and procedures: Employers should have a written policy that outlines their commitment to preventing harassment in the workplace. This policy should clearly define what constitutes harassment and provide a detailed procedure for reporting and investigating any complaints. Employers should also provide training to all employees on the policy and the consequences of violating it.

• Create a positive workplace culture: A positive workplace culture can go a long way in preventing harassment. Employers should promote open communication, respect, and inclusion. They should also ensure that all employees are aware of the company’s values and mission.

• Conduct regular training: Regular training on harassment prevention should be mandatory for all employees, including managers and supervisors. The training should cover the definition of harassment, the company’s policies and procedures, and how to report any incidents.

• Respond to complaints quickly and thoroughly: Employers must take all complaints of harassment seriously and investigate them promptly. The investigation should be thorough and impartial, and the employer should take appropriate action if the complaint is substantiated.

• Avoid retaliation: Employers should not retaliate against employees who report harassment. Retaliation can take many forms, including termination, demotion, or harassment. Employers should have a clear policy against retaliation and ensure that all employees are aware of it.

Workplace harassment claims can be costly for employers in terms of money and reputation. By taking proactive measures to prevent harassment, employers can create a positive workplace culture and reduce the risk of harassment claims.  To best implement these steps, employers should seek guidance from experienced employment counsel.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.

In the news for April 2023, significant legal issues surrounding religious accommodations and “preferred pronouns” may hinge on a Lancaster County postal worker’s Supreme Court lawsuit, and Pennsylvania employers saw big wins in the areas of workers’ compensation immunity and severance waivers.  See the details below.

Significant issues in the federal courts surrounding religious accommodations and “preferred pronouns” are on the horizon, and the results potentially hinge on a Lancaster County postal worker’s case

The Seventh Circuit pressed pause on an evangelical Christian teacher’s challenge to the dismissal of his suit claiming he was unlawfully forced to resign because he wouldn’t use transgender students’ preferred pronouns, citing a pending religious bias case in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Seventh Circuit has placed the legal battle between former orchestra teacher John M. Kluge and Brownsburg High School on hold until the nation’s highest court rules in a former mail carrier’s suit looking to overturn an employer-friendly test for measuring the burden of a religious accommodation on an employer.

In the Supreme Court case, Gerald Groff vs. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, which was argued April 18, an evangelical Christian mail carrier from Quarryville, PA, filed suit arguing that the US Postal Service failed to accommodate his religious-accommodation request to not work on Sundays under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  After losing at the trial court level, the Third Circuit upheld a ruling that by the trial court giving the mail carrier a blanket exemption from working Sundays would have been an “undue burden” on the USPS.  The U.S. Supreme Court is now wrestling with the question of what the true standard is for an “undue burden” under Title VII.

Meanwhile, at the Seventh Circuit, Kluge asked Friday for a rehearing of a panel decision that upheld the school’s trial court defeat of his Title VII religious bias suit.  Kluge is arguing that because he’s a man of deep Christian faith, his religious beliefs bar him from using first names and pronouns that conflict with a student’s biological sex.  Brownsburg has urged the appellate court to keep the lower court’s ruling in place because public schools play a custodial and protective role, and allowing Kluge to continue using students’ last names would have conflicted with the school’s mission to create a safe and supportive environment.  Earlier, an Indiana trial court ruled in Brownsburg’s favor in July 2021, finding that allowing Kluge to bypass the school’s policy requiring staff to use students’ gender-affirming names and pronouns would’ve created an undue hardship for the school.

The Seventh Circuit case is John Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Co., case number 21-2475.

Pa. Supreme Court says lawsuit by Home Depot employee who was bitten by a customer’s dog is barred by Workers’ Compensation Act

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that an employee who was bitten by a customer’s dog while working at Home Depot and received workers’ compensation benefits cannot sue her employer for the injury. The court overturned the decisions of two lower courts, which had found that the worker’s claims were not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA). The WCA mandates that worker injury claims against employers must be adjudicated via workers’ compensation proceedings, but there is an exception that allows employees to sue third parties for causing a worker’s injury. The lower courts had found that the exception applied because Home Depot had prevented the worker from obtaining the customer’s identity. However, the state’s highest court found that the plain language of the WCA bars the worker’s claim, and that her purported injury is too “intertwined” with the dog bite injury to justify creating an exception.

The case is Franczyk v. The Home Depot Inc. et al., case number 11 WAP 2022, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

US Steel Prevails Against Laid-Off Workers’ Class Action Lawsuit For Bonuses

A Western-Pennsylvania state judge has ruled in favor of U.S. Steel Corp., dismissing a proposed class action claiming the company owed bonuses to a group of laid-off workers. The judge granted U.S. Steel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, agreeing with the company’s argument that the former employees waived their claims when they accepted severance packages. The workers had argued that annual bonuses, based on previous year’s performance, had created an implied contract over nearly a decade, with consistent payments made until 300 nonunion employees were laid off in 2016. However, U.S. Steel maintained that the bonuses were discretionary, and that as a condition of severance, the employees had agreed to waive any legal claims against the company. The proposed class included claims for breach of implied contract, violation of Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment.

The case is Eynon et al. v. United States Steel Corp., case number GD-20-003630, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.