Dive Brief:
- A Florida state court erred when it granted summary judgment to a paramedic placed on unpaid leave after a positive marijuana test because it incorrectly held that employers cannot discipline employees without proof of on-duty impairment, according to a Wednesday decision of the state’s Second District Court of Appeal.
- The trial court in Hillsborough County v. Giambrone incorrectly interpreted the collective bargaining agreement between the county and employees to define medical marijuana as a prescription or nonprescription medication. This, in turn, led the court to wrongly conclude that the CBA required the county to treat a positive test as negative unless the result had been verified by a medical review officer.
- Moreover, Florida’s constitutional medical marijuana provisions do not require that employers accommodate on-site or off-site use, which the trial court also wrongly concluded. The appeals court noted that state medical marijuana regulations bolster this finding as they do not limit the ability of employers to establish, continue or enforce drug-free workplace programs or policies. It reversed and remanded the case with instructions that the trial court enter final summary judgment for the county.
Dive Insight:
The national conversation in medical and recreational marijuana legalization has shifted considerably in recent decades. As of March 2025, 38 out 50 states had legalized medical use, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But workplace guidelines display a deeper divide, and only a portion of states that have legalized medical marijuana also prohibit employers from discriminating against workers who have a valid prescription.
Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing certain medical use in 2016. But the law as implemented does not require accommodation of any employee who works while under the influence of medical marijuana regardless of where that use occurred, the appeals court noted. In holding otherwise, the trial court “depends on an interpretive chain that breaks at every link,” the appeals court concluded.
However, the appeals court also said in a footnote that its decision in Giambrone is intended to be construed narrowly and that its analysis turned on the interaction between Florida law and the county’s drug-free workplace policy and CBA. “How other employers, or employees subject to different CBAs or different policies, may address medical marijuana is not before us,” the court continued.
Two judges concurred in the result. One wrote that while final summary judgment was properly granted to the county, the court’s opinion did not completely resolve the case because it stopped short of addressing the plaintiff’s accommodation claims under Florida’s Civil Rights Act.
While many statutes legalizing medical or recreational use do not expressly prohibit employers from making or enforcing drug-testing and drug-free workplace policies, some employers have voluntarily scaled back marijuana screenings as a way to expand talent pools. HR departments may take a silent approach to the issue or drop testing for marijuana while maintaining testing for other illicit drugs, sources previously told HR Dive, while others test primarily to detect on-the-job impairment.