245 A.3d 283
Pa. Commw. Ct.2020Background
- HACC operates an associate-level nursing program that requires annual urine drug screening and removes students who test positive.
- Swope, a nursing student who suffers from PTSD and IBS, alleged she can meet program requirements if allowed to use physician‑prescribed medical marijuana and requested that accommodation.
- HACC denied the accommodation, citing its drug policy and clinics’ contracts; Swope filed a discrimination complaint with the PHRC under PHRA and PFEOA.
- HACC moved to dismiss, arguing PHRA and PFEOA exclude current users of controlled substances and incorporate the federal Controlled Substances Act (which lists marijuana as Schedule I), so neither statute requires accommodation of medical marijuana even if permitted by Pennsylvania’s MMA.
- The PHRC denied the motion, reasoning the MMA makes medical marijuana lawful in Pennsylvania and thus not an ‘‘illegal’’ controlled‑substance use excluded from PHRA/PFEOA protections.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed: it held the MMA did not amend or repeal PHRA/PFEOA’s exclusion (which incorporates the federal CSA), the MMA contains no post‑secondary student accommodation mandate, and HACC was not required to accommodate Swope’s medical marijuana use; case remanded to grant dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PHRA/PFEOA require accommodation of medical marijuana use authorized by the MMA | Swope: MMA makes medical marijuana lawful in PA, so PHRA/PFEOA’s exclusion of "illegal" drug use does not apply; she must be accommodated. | HACC: PHRA/PFEOA exclude current users of controlled substances by reference to the federal CSA, which still classifies marijuana as illegal Schedule I; no accommodation required. | Court: PHRA/PFEOA still exclude users under the federal CSA; MMA did not amend those statutes to require accommodation for post‑secondary students; no accommodation required. |
| Whether the MMA impliedly repealed or amended PHRA/PFEOA (so medical marijuana is not an "illegal" use for exclusion) | Swope/PHRC: Section 303(a) of MMA makes medical marijuana "lawful," so later statute supersedes earlier exclusions. | HACC: MMA does not mention PHRA/PFEOA and expressly amends other statutes only; implied repeal disfavored—legislature did not clearly intend to amend PHRA/PFEOA. | Court: No implied repeal or amendment; MMA and PHRA/PFEOA are not irreconcilable; expressio unius supports that legislature did not alter PHRA/PFEOA. |
| Whether PHRC’s interpretation of PHRA/PFEOA is entitled to deference | PHRC: agency enforcement role and liberal‑construction mandate support PHRC reading that medical marijuana users are covered. | HACC: statutory text is unambiguous and references federal CSA; agency should not get deference when interpretation conflicts with clear statute. | Court: Statutes unambiguous on exclusion and PHRC’s reading would frustrate legislative intent; no deference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (explains Schedule I classification and congressional findings about marijuana)
- Gass v. 52nd Judicial Dist., Lebanon Cnty., 232 A.3d 706 (Pa. 2020) (state policy cannot be overridden by reference to federal CSA when legislature authorized medical marijuana)
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecomms., Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (Cal. 2008) (medical marijuana legalization did not obligate employers to accommodate use under state anti‑discrimination law)
- Mohamed v. Dep’t of Transp., 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
- HSP Gaming, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia, 954 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2008) (implied repeal not favored; requires irreconcilable conflict)
- Office of Admin. v. Pa. Labor Rel. Bd., 916 A.2d 541 (Pa. 2007) (limits on deference to agency interpretations when statute is clear)
- Winn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 484 A.2d 392 (Pa. 1984) (PHRA must be construed liberally but not to override plain statutory language)