Within days of the publication in the Aug. 16, 2021, Legal Intelligencer of the last installment of this occasional series on Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), the Superior Court affirmed Judge William J. Nealon’s decision—discussed in that article—that the  MMA does provide for a private right of action by medical marijuana patients claiming discrimination in employment. See Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Systems, 260 A.3d 967 (Pa.Super. 2021). Rejecting the contention that exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement of the MMA lies with the Department of Health, the court stated that “although the General Assembly did not expressly create a private right of action on behalf of an employee whose employer discriminates against her for medical marijuana use, it proclaimed a public policy prohibiting such discrimination. See 35 P.S. Section 10231.2103.” 260 A.3d at 973. Beyond acknowledging the existence of the claim, however, the court did not provide any specific guidance to either patients or employers concerning their rights and obligations under the statute. It acknowledged generally that:

The same section of the statute that creates employment protections for patients also explicitly sets forth the rights of employers, i.e., that an employer is not required to provide an accommodation for certified users and may discipline employees who are under the influence of medical marijuana in the workplace. See Section 2103(b)(2). Thus, in the employment context, Section 2103(b) of the MMA not only delineates the rights afforded employees who are certified users, but also sets forth the rights of employers to discipline employees who are in violation of the terms of certified use.