Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
764 F. Supp. 2d 914
W.D. Mich.2011Background
- Casias, a Battle Creek, Michigan, Wal-Mart employee, was terminated under Wal-Mart's drug-testing policy after testing positive for marijuana.
- Estill, a Michigan resident and Wal-Mart store manager, was named as a defendant; he is a potential non-diverse party for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
- Wal-Mart’s decision to terminate was made at corporate level by Wal-Mart’s drug screening department, not by Estill.
- Casias disclosed medical marijuana use with a state registry card; he claimed MMMA protection was violated by termination.
- Plaintiff filed in state court; defendants removed to federal court; Casias moved to remand, and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Estill’s inclusion defeat diversity and permit remand? | Casias argues Estill should be treated as a non-diverse defendant. | Defendants contend Estill’s involvement is fraudulent and should be disregarded. | Estill disregarded for diversity; federal jurisdiction exists; remand denied. |
| Does the MMMA regulate private employment and create a private right of action? | MMMA prohibits state actions against medical marijuana users and may create private action. | MMMA does not regulate private employment and does not create a private right of action. | MMMA does not regulate private employment or create a private right of action; dismissal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lash v. City of Traverse City, 479 Mich. 180 (2007) (private right of action not inferred without intent)
- Reed v. Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council, 201 Mich.App. 10 (1993) (corporate agents not liable without substantial control)
- Suchodolski v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692 (1982) (public policy claim requires strong basis in policy)
- Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management, LLC, 152 Wash.App. 388 (2009) (MUMA does not create private civil remedy)
- Stevens v. Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Fund, 979 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1992) (disjunctive list terms may have separate meanings)
- Freeman v. Unisys Corp., 870 F.Supp.169 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (employee input alone may not impose liability)
- Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc., 970 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1992) (significant control required for agency liability)
- Bush v. Hayes, 286 Mich. 546 (1938) (active participation standard for personal liability)
- Allen v. Morris Bldg. Co., 360 Mich. 214 (1960) (employee in control of duties may imply liability)