Federal Court Rules that Walmart Firing Violated the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act
A terminated employee's successful lawsuit
underscores the importance of employers exercising caution when making
employment decisions on medical marijuana cardholders.
In 2013, an Arizona Walmart employee, Carol Whitmire,
informed Walmart that she suffered from chronic pain but that she could
continue to perform her work duties as a supervisor, with or without a
reasonable accommodation. At about that time, she obtained an Arizona
patient medical marijuana card as provided by the Arizona Medical Marijuana
Act (AMMA). She smoked medical marijuana as a sleep aid but never brought
marijuana to work nor was impaired by it while she was on the job. She had
worked at Walmart stores in Show Low and Taylor for several years and was
knowledgeable about the company's drug non-tolerance policy.
In May 2016, Ms. Whitmire was injured while working.
Pursuant to the company's workplace injury policy, Walmart instructed her to
visit an urgent care facility and submit to a urine test. She informed her
supervisor that she had a medical marijuana patient card for pre-existing
chronic pain, and the supervisor made a copy of the card. When Ms. Whitmire
tested positive for marijuana metabolites in her urine, Walmart concluded that
she was impaired during her shift, suspended her, and ultimately terminated her.
In 2017, Ms. Whitmire sued Walmart in federal court in
Phoenix, claiming she was wrongfully terminated and/or discriminated against in
violation of the AMMA.
the Court ruled in her favor, addressing at least two important issues for
1. The AMMA provides a private cause of action
against an employer.
Judge James A. Teilborg concluded that
A.R.S. § 36-2813(B) provides an implied private
cause of action to a registered medical marijuana card-holding employee when an
employer takes an adverse employment action against the employee on the basis of
the employee's use of medical marijuana.
2. Adopting drug testing policies in accordance with
Arizona law does not protect an employer from AMMA discrimination claims.
Walmart argued that, because it had implemented drug
testing policies in accordance with Arizona's Drug Testing of Employees Act (DETA)
and had a good faith belief that Ms. Whitmire was impaired on the job, the
company was shielded from Ms. Whitmire's lawsuit.
The AMMA provides:
"[A]n employer may not discriminate against a person in
hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise
penalize a person based upon ... [a] registered qualifying patient's positive
drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used,
possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of
employment or during the hours of employment."
The Court noted that, while the AMMA does not prohibit
an employer from disciplining an employee for working under the influence of
marijuana, "a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under
the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or
components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause
impairment." (emphasis added).
The Court then looked to DETA, which states:
"[N]o cause of action is or may be established for any
person against an employer who has established a policy and initiated a testing
program in accordance with this article for ... [a]ctions based on the
employer's good faith belief that an employee had an impairment while working on
the employer's premises or during hours of employment."
A "good faith belief" may be based on "the results of a
test for the use of alcohol or drugs." Id. A.R.S. § 23-493(6).
Reading the two statutes together, the Court held that,
for an affirmative defense under the DETA on a discrimination claim, Walmart was
required to prove:
it had a good faith belief that Ms. Whitmire was
impaired by marijuana at work, and
her drug test sufficiently established the presence of
metabolites or components of marijuana in a scientifically sufficient
concentration to cause impairment.
Walmart did not meet this burden; in fact, Walmart
admitted that the sole basis for terminating Ms. Whitmire's employment was her
positive drug test. Walmart failed to observe impairment and did not produce
expert testimony opining on the state of her impairment on the job. The Court
concluded that Walmart could not prove a "good faith basis" to justify
employment termination based upon impairment, thereby violating the AMMA's
In the wake of Judge Teilborg's ruling:
Employees now have a private cause of action against
their employers for AMMA-based discriminatory actions.
Employers intending to conduct drug testing must (a)
adopt written policies and procedures on testing and (b) deliver the policies
and procedures to employees before testing commences.
Employers should not take disciplinary actions against
employees based solely on a positive drug test. Employers must also have
evidence of impairment on the job.
Employers would be wise to review and update their
employment policies and procedures to:
ensure that drug tests are specific to the type(s) of
metabolites causing impairment and their concentration in the employee's blood;
present the drug test results to a physician or
laboratory for an interpretation of the effect of the marijuana upon the
specific employee's job performance;
take the statements of co-workers who can observe and
gather evidence on performance; and
document their drug testing, drug usage, discipline and
discharge policies and procedures and communicate them to employees prior to
Contact Sacks Tierney cannabis attorneys
Janet Jackim or
Joe Keene for more information on or to discuss the effects of
Walmart on your workplace environment.
 Carol M. Whitmire v. Wal-Mart Stores
Incorporated, No. CV-17-08108 (D. Ariz. Feb. 7, 2019)
 A.R.S. § 36-2813(B)(2)
 A.R.S. § 36-2814(A)(3)
 A.R.S. § 23-493.06(A)(6)