You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that refusing to hire plaintiff for testing positive for marijuana when he was being treated with marijuana stated a cause of action for employment discrimination:

We find unavailing the defendant’s contention that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] because the defendant chose not to hire the plaintiff based only on his positive drug test and not his disability. Refusing to hire the plaintiff because he tested positive for marijuana while knowing that he was being treated with marijuana by a licensed physician for a medical condition effectively denied the plaintiff the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation, and therefore, under these circumstances, is appropriately recognized as a cognizable cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the NYCHRL … . Brouillard v Sunrun, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04184, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Refusing to hire plaintiff for testing positive for marijuana when plaintiff was under a doctor’s treatment with marijuana stated a cause of action for denying the plaintiff the opportunity of a reasonable accommodation.

 

You might also like
Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless
​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Refusal to Allow Relative’s Testimony Did Not Deny Right to Present a Defense
LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.
ALTHOUGH THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE PLAINTIFF INSTALLED ON A PARTY WALL WAS A TRESPASS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF THE CLADDING AND DRIP EDGE (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Should Not Have Been Dismissed Solely Upon the Determination an Arbitration Clause Was Valid and Applicable
AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTED THE JURY’S... THE ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL TO REACH...