A state law allowing medical marijuana use does not translate into an affirmative obligation for employers to accommodate such use, according to a Hawaii federal court. In Lambdin v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Group, the plaintiff, Barton Lambdin, alleged that he was retaliated against for filing agency complaints alleging disability discrimination. The company countered that he was terminated after a drug test came back positive for marijuana in violation of company policy. Lambdin had been prescribed medical marijuana by his physician to treat ongoing hip pain that had not been corrected by multiple surgeries.

Lambdin was working as a Groundskeeper at a Marriott Resorts property on Kauai when he requested to have the company provide a lift or hoist to assist with job functions that were impaired due to his hip condition. His lawsuit alleges that he filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission after his accommodation request was denied. He further alleges that he was subsequently terminated in retaliation for filing those agency charges.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that Lambdin was terminated for legitimate business reasons. Specifically, he was terminated for failing a drug test he took in compliance with the company’s drug and alcohol policy. The record showed that while he tested positive for marijuana, his use of it was for medically prescribed reasons.

In concluding that the employer’s motion for summary judgment should be granted on Lambdin’s retaliation complaint, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii reasoned that Marriott had grounds for terminating him where its drug and alcohol policy prohibits employees from using marijuana, even where they have prescriptions to do so. The court noted that marijuana use is prohibited under federal law, and that “[a] state law decriminalizing marijuana use does not create an affirmative requirement for employers to accommodate medical marijuana use.” As such, the court granted Marriott’s motion and dismissed Lambdin’s retaliation claim.