Coles v. Harris Teeter, LLC
217 F. Supp. 3d 185
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Coles, a D.C. resident with glaucoma, obtained a D.C. medical-marijuana card and a physician's recommendation for medical marijuana.
- Harris Teeter hired Coles as an at-will cashier in March 2016; Coles performed well and had no disciplinary record.
- Coles tested positive for marijuana on a random workplace drug screen on May 4, 2016, and provided his medical-marijuana documentation three days later.
- Store manager initially told Coles the positive test would not be a problem if he produced a valid prescription; Harris Teeter terminated Coles on May 10 for violating its substance-abuse policy.
- Coles sued in D.C. Superior Court alleging wrongful termination and disability discrimination under the DCHRA; Harris Teeter removed the case and moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coles pleaded a common-law wrongful-termination claim under D.C. public-policy exception | Coles contends termination violated D.C. public policy embodied in the Medical Marijuana Treatment Act allowing medical marijuana use | Harris Teeter argues at-will employment is permissible and D.C. law does not require employers to tolerate employee marijuana use | Dismissed: D.C. law does not clearly mandate employer accommodation of lawful off-duty medical marijuana use; public-policy exception not met |
| Whether Coles pleaded a disability-discrimination claim under the DCHRA | Coles alleges he was fired because of his glaucoma and his physician-prescribed treatment | Harris Teeter contends termination resulted from violation of substance-abuse policy after a positive drug test, not disability | Not dismissed: Allegations (timing, inconsistent policy enforcement, comparator employee) permit plausible inference of discriminatory motive; claim survives pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (treat complaint allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (at-will employment rule in D.C.)
- Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012) (medical-marijuana statutes do not necessarily prohibit employer discipline for marijuana use)
- Adeyemi v. District of Columbia, 525 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (court should avoid full causation analysis at pleading stage)
- Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (inconsistent enforcement can support inference of discriminatory motive)