Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC
477 Mass. 456
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Cristina Barbuto, a qualified medical marijuana patient with Crohn’s disease, informed employer Advantage Sales and Marketing (ASM) before hire that she would test positive on a mandatory drug test because of physician‑certified medical marijuana use.
- Barbuto completed a day of work but was terminated after her urine test showed marijuana; ASM told her it followed federal law and would not accommodate state‑law medical marijuana use.
- Barbuto filed MCAD charges, withdrew them to sue in Superior Court raising claims under G. L. c. 151B (handicap discrimination, interference, aiding and abetting), invasion of privacy, an implied private right of action under the Massachusetts medical marijuana act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- The Superior Court dismissed all counts except invasion of privacy; Barbuto appealed and the SJC took direct review of the dismissed counts.
- The SJC reviewed whether (1) termination for lawful medical marijuana use can support a handicap discrimination claim under G. L. c. 151B, (2) the medical marijuana act implies a private cause of action, and (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination for lawful medical marijuana use can state a handicap discrimination claim under G. L. c. 151B §4(16) | Barbuto: Crohn’s is a handicap; allowing medical marijuana is a reasonable accommodation and ASM failed to engage in the interactive process | ASM: Medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so permitting its use is per se unreasonable; termination enforced a neutral drug‑free policy | SJC: Reversed dismissal — medical marijuana can be a facially reasonable accommodation; employer must engage in interactive process and may only prevail by proving undue hardship or that accommodation is unreasonable |
| Whether the medical marijuana act creates an implied private cause of action for employees terminated for lawful use | Barbuto: The act’s protection against denial of "any right or privilege" supports a private remedy | ASM: The statute contains no express private remedy; federal law conflict and silence weigh against implying a remedy | SJC: Affirmed dismissal — no implied private cause of action; remedy exists under G. L. c. 151B and the statute’s silence and harmony with existing law counsel against implication |
| Whether wrongful termination in violation of public policy is available based on medical marijuana use | Barbuto: Termination for lawful medical use violates public policy embedded in the medical marijuana act | ASM: At‑will termination permissible absent a clearly established public policy creating a wrongful‑termination claim | SJC: Affirmed dismissal — no separate wrongful‑termination cause needed where G. L. c. 151B provides the appropriate remedy; public‑policy exception to at‑will employment is narrow |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Herb Chambers I-95, Inc., 458 Mass. 674 (de novo review on motion to dismiss standard)
- Gannon v. Boston, 476 Mass. 786 (deference to MCAD guidelines; liberal construction of G. L. c. 151B)
- Dahill v. Police Dep't of Boston, 434 Mass. 233 (MCAD guidelines not carrying force of law but given substantial deference)
- Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co., 457 Mass. 113 (employer’s duty to engage in interactive process and consider accommodations)
- Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 450 Mass. 327 (interactive process obligation)
- Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055 (employer liability where it ‘‘turn[ed] a blind eye’’ and failed interactive dialogue)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (federal Controlled Substances Act designates marijuana as Schedule I)
- King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576 (narrow public‑policy exception to at‑will employment)