Tonya Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, 117 F.4th 165

Tonya Anderson was terminated by Diamondback Investment Group, LLC after failing two drug tests for marijuana during her probationary employment period.
Anderson suffers from anxiety and muscle spasms, which she treated with over-the-counter hemp-derived products, including CBD, Delta-8, Delta-10, THC-O, and HHC.
Anderson claimed her drug tests were positive due to her use of these hemp-derived products and asserts that she never used illegal drugs/recreational marijuana.
She brought three claims against Diamondback: ADA wrongful discharge, ADA failure to accommodate, and wrongful discharge under a North Carolina statute protecting lawful, off-duty product use.
The district court granted summary judgment to Diamondback on all claims, and Anderson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA wrongful discharge	Anderson is disabled and was fired for lawful treatment of her disability, not illegal drug use; policy is discriminatory.	Anderson is not disabled under ADA, or, even if so, the firing was for failing drug tests—a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason under company policy.	Anderson did not meet burden to show disability or pretext; summary judgment affirmed.
ADA failure to accommodate	Anderson needed an accommodation (exemption from drug policy) to treat her disability with hemp products.	Anderson never requested any accommodation or exemption from the drug testing policy.	No evidence Anderson requested accommodation; summary judgment affirmed.
NC Lawful products statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.2)	Firing for off-duty, legal hemp use violates the law protecting employees’ right to use lawful products outside work hours.	Anderson's products may not be lawful (no proof on THC content or legality); plus, the company's drug policy is a bona fide requirement reasonably related to work.	Anderson failed to prove products were legal; policy fits statutory exception.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (defines the summary judgment standard)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (describes the ultimate burden of proof in discrimination cases)
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (addresses age and neutral employment policies)
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (neutral workplace rules and ADA claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (details McDonnell Douglas burden shifting steps)
Conkwright v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 933 F.2d 231 (legitimacy of using neutral employment criteria)
Reynolds v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (ADA prima facie case standards)