661 F.Supp.3d 415
M.D.N.C.2023Background
- Plaintiff worked for Defendant from Oct. 20, 2020 to Jan. 4, 2021 under an introductory 90‑day term; employment was conditioned on drug testing and refusal/testing positive could lead to termination.
- Plaintiff tested positive for marijuana on two separate post‑offer drug tests (one inconclusive test in between); Defendant terminated her for failing multiple drug tests.
- Plaintiff claimed she used CBD (for anxiety and pain) and submitted a short nurse note and an email describing past trauma and use of CBD; she offered to provide medical verification and service‑animal documentation.
- Plaintiff sued under the ADA (wrongful discharge and failure to accommodate) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95‑28.2 (lawful off‑duty use of lawful products). Defendant moved for summary judgment; Plaintiff moved to seal certain exhibits.
- The court found Plaintiff produced no admissible evidence that she is ‘‘disabled’’ under the ADA, that she provided adequate notice or a clear accommodation request, and that Defendant’s drug policy was a bona fide occupational requirement; summary judgment for Defendant was granted and two exhibits were permanently sealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA wrongful discharge: whether Plaintiff is an individual with a disability and was terminated because of it | Plaintiff says CBD use treated a disability (anxiety/joint pain) and Defendant knew and accepted that CBD caused positive tests | Plaintiff is not a "disabled" individual under ADA; termination followed legitimate drug‑testing policy after positive tests | Court: Plaintiff failed to show a disability or pretext; summary judgment for Defendant on wrongful discharge |
| ADA failure to accommodate: whether Defendant had notice and refused reasonable accommodation | Plaintiff contends she gave supervisor a nurse note, emailed owners, and requested to continue working using CBD | Defendant had no adequate notice of a disability or a specific accommodation request and engaged (or had no duty to speculate) | Court: No genuine issue—no proof of disability, notice, or clear accommodation request; summary judgment for Defendant |
| N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95‑28.2 (lawful off‑duty use): whether Defendant’s rule was a prohibited discrimination | Plaintiff argues her use of lawful hemp/CBD was lawful and not restricted by the statute | Defendant says statute excepts employer restrictions that relate to a bona fide occupational requirement reasonably related to employment (its drug‑testing policy to ensure workplace safety) | Court: Defendant’s drug policy was a bona fide occupational requirement reasonably related to workplace safety; summary judgment for Defendant |
| Procedural: compliance with Local Rule 56.1(a) (notice of dispositive motion) | Plaintiff urged the court not to consider Defendant’s untimely notice | Defendant acknowledged the notice error but argued the motion was timely filed and consideration would not delay proceedings | Court considered the motion (no prejudice) but admonished Defendant to follow Local Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting and movant’s initial showing)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show genuine factual dispute)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (credibility / view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant limits)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. standard for ADA discrimination proof methods)
- Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 696 (prima facie elements for ADA wrongful discharge)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff’s burden to show pretext)
- Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (nonmovant cannot rely on conclusory allegations at summary judgment)
- Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (failure‑to‑accommodate elements and interactive process)
- Doe v. Meron, 929 F.3d 153 (opposing party must present evidence admissible at trial)
- Garner v. Retenbach Constructors Inc., 515 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. Supreme Court recognizing permissibility of drug‑free workplace policies)