Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co.
307 Mich. App. 340
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Consolidated appeals involve three claimants (Braska, Kemp, Kudzia) seeking unemployment benefits denied after drug tests.
- Each claimant possessed a Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) registry card and was discharged following positive marijuana tests.
- UIA initially denied benefits under MESA for testing positive or related misconduct; MCAC later reversed, denying benefits.
- Circuit courts reversed MCAC in Kemp and Kudzia, while Braska’s circuit status relied on substantial evidence issues; all involve MMMA vs. MESA interplay.
- The issue is whether MMMA immunity supersedes MESA so that medical marijuana use cannot disqualify benefits when use complied with MMMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMMA immunity supersedes MESA to bar denial of unemployment benefits for medical marijuana users. | Braska/Kemp/Kudzia: denial under §29(l)(m) penalizes medical use; MMMA immunity applies. | Department: MMMA immunity not applicable to unemployment benefits; disqualification valid under MESA. | Yes; MMMA immunity supersedes MESA to prevent denial. |
| Whether MMMA applies to state action (MCAC) rather than private employers. | Claimants: state action triggers MMMA consideration; immunity applies. | Private/public distinction unclear; Casias speaks to private employers. | Yes; MMMA applies where state action denies benefits. |
| Whether the disqualification under §29(l)(m) constitutes a penalty under MMMA. | Disqualification for medical marijuana use is a prohibited penalty. | Denial could be framed as drug-test consequence, not MMMA penalty. | Yes; denial is a penalty prohibited by MMMA immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casias v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012) (MMMA immunity not binding on private employer decision (cited for private employer posture))
- People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012) (MMMA purpose and limited medical use; independence from broad legalization)
- Ter Beek v Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (2014) (defines 'penalty' broadly under MMMA immunity; includes civil penalties)
- In re Haley, 476 Mich 180 (2006) (specific-vs-general statute control rule in statutory interpretation)