935 N.W.2d 104
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff, a registered medical marijuana patient, received a conditional job offer from Lansing Board of Water and Light (BWL) conditioned on passing a drug test.
- Plaintiff tested positive for THC; she informed BWL of her registry card and submitted proof, but BWL rescinded the conditional offer before employment began.
- Plaintiff sued the City of Lansing and BWL alleging violation of § 4(a) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and breach of contract. She sought damages and equitable relief.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8), arguing governmental immunity, that the MMMA creates no private right of action against government entities for money damages, and that employers may enforce zero-tolerance drug policies; they also argued the offer was at-will so no contract was breached.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning § 4(a) is an immunity provision that does not create an affirmative right to employment and plaintiff had no non‑at‑will employment contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4(a) of the MMMA prohibits rescission of a conditional job offer after a positive THC test | §4(a) bars penalties or denial of rights/privileges based on medical marijuana use; rescission was a penalty | §4(a) is an immunity clause, not an affirmative employment right; rescission of an at‑will offer is not a §4(a) penalty | Held: §4(a) does not create a cause of action to prevent rescission of an at‑will conditional offer; no §4(a) violation shown |
| Whether governmental immunity bars plaintiff's MMMA claim for damages against public entities | Plaintiff argued immunity did not apply (BWL a proprietary function) and MMMA supersedes GTLA | Defendants asserted GTLA immunity applies and MMMA does not create a private damages remedy against governmental agencies | Held: GTLA issues not dispositive because §4(a) does not provide plaintiff a separate right here; plaintiff sought damages but could not show a compensable statutory entitlement |
| Whether plaintiff stated a breach‑of‑contract claim based on withdrawal of conditional offer | Plaintiff alleged she satisfied conditions and offer was illegally rescinded | Defendants argued employment was at‑will and condition (acceptable drug test) was unsatisfied | Held: Complaint failed to plead a non‑at‑will or for‑cause promise; no enforceable contract was alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (review of summary disposition standards)
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (distinguishing tort liability from contract claims under GTLA)
- Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich 186 (plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity)
- Lash v. Traverse City, 479 Mich 180 (no private damages action against government absent legislative authorization)
- Braska v. Challenge Mfg. Co., 307 Mich App 340 (MMMA can bar denial of unemployment benefits as a "penalty")
- Michigan v. McQueen, 493 Mich 135 (MMMA §4(a) grants immunity from penalty/prosecution)
- People v. Koon, 494 Mich 1 (MMMA does not provide unfettered rights to registered patients)
- Ter Beek v. Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (broad interpretation of "penalty" under MMMA)
- Lytle v. Malady, 458 Mich 153 (presumption of at‑will employment; methods to rebut)
- Rood v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 444 Mich 107 (at‑will employment can be terminated for any reason)
- Rowe v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 437 Mich 627 (insufficient allegations of promise limiting termination defeats contract claim)