“Hamilton,” the smash-hit Broadway musical that has drawn universal praise for its diverse casting, may be in hot water over the thing that made it so special to begin with. CBS2 reports that the latest casting notice has drawn ire from a New York attorney over the fact that it specifically requests “non-white men and women” to audition for roles.

Randolph McLaughlin, a civil rights attorney, claims that the casting notice is in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The law declares it unlawful for any advertisement or publication relating to employment to express “directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination” as to “race, creed, color,” among other characteristics.

While a press representative told CBS2 reporters that the ad was approved by Actor’s Equity, the Broadway union, an Actor’s Equity spokeswoman told Fortune that the ad was not in compliance with its standards and was not approved by the union.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, the show’s creator and star, has been outspoken in the past about the deliberate intention to cast minorities in these roles. He told The Hollywood Reporter:

In ‘Hamilton,’ we’re telling the stories of old, dead white men but we’re using actors of color, and that makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience. You don’t distance the audience by putting an actor of color in a role that you would think of as default Caucasian. No, you excite people and you draw them in.

A publicist for the show later provided a statement to Fortune that emphasized that the show did not break any laws through this posting. He said:

 The producers of Hamilton regret the confusion that’s arisen from the recent posting of an open call casting notice for the show. It is essential to the storytelling of Hamilton that the principal roles—which were written for non-white characters (excepting King George)—be performed by non-white actors. This adheres to the accepted practice that certain characteristics in certain roles constitute a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ that is legal.

So, there you have it: it looks like “Hamilton” fans need not be too concerned. And considering the intense demand for tickets (seriously…good luck getting tickets before 2018) it is doubtful that the show’s future will be affected by this controversy. With fans like President Obama, Beyonce, and practically any other famous person you could think of, it seems like the “Hamilton” train isn’t slowing down anytime soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Hamilton” Accused of Reverse Racism with Casting Call appeared first on Law Street.

Teachers are the key to educating and developing the minds of future generations. They are an invaluable asset to break down barriers, open minds, distill fear and misunderstanding, and to bridge the gaps across cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender disparities. Teachers are sometimes the only individuals within a child’s life, apart from parents or grandparents, that take on a quasi-parental role and are provided with an opportunity to teach children much more than a couple of history lessons. They can greatly influence the lens through which children see the world in adulthood, which can both be excellent and scary all in the same breath. This is especially true during times of great uncertainty–during times of terrorism and fear, teachers’ personal beliefs may end up being at issue as well.

In light of the growing rate of Islamophobia within the United States, the general population has become more aware, more critical, and more concerned with safety, particularly in the context of religious interaction. Accordingly, parents have been more demanding of the schools in which their children spend most of their time and the individuals who assume the roles of caretakers in school settings. Due to the heightened awareness and concern, regardless if justified, a Muslim New Jersey teacher named Sireen Hashem was reportedly fired for showing her class a video about Malala Yousafazi, a young advocate for children’s education worldwide and the youngest person to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy. Read on for a look at the case, including the Muslim teacher who was fired, the circumstances of her employment at Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination.

The Discrimination Battle

On December 14, 2015, Sireen Hashem filed a civil complaint against  Hunterdon County, the Board of Education, Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and four named individuals including the history department’s supervisor–Robert Zywicki, and Principal Suzanne Cooley. Here are the facts her complaint alleges:

Sireen Hashem, a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, had joined the Hunterdon Central Regional High School’s history department in September 2013. No stranger to criticism, Hashem has shared that she had experienced several complaints regarding her lesson plans, which she alleges were no different than and followed the same curriculum as her fellow history coworkers. Furthermore, the video about Malala that Hashem showed to her class, subsequent her own screening to make sure it fell in line with her lesson for the day, was suggested by her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworker, Lindsay Wagner, who had shown the exact same video in her class on the same day. Yet Hashem alleges she was the only teacher to suffer any reprimand.

According to her lawyers, many of the complaints against Hashem do not revolve around the lessons taught to her own classroom, but rather pertain to her assistance and help provided to other teachers. Hashem had been asked by a coworker to translate an interview of a Palestinian subject. She had also been asked to take part in a discussion about “The Lemon Tree” and assist in translating a Skype conversation that the students were able to have with a Palestinian character featured in the book, with which she complied. Parents were allegedly unhappy about Hashem’s participation in the Skype conversation.

Further, Hashem was allegedly criticized for her essay question asking students to “compare the actions of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry to the actions of Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001”–a document-based question used by a number of teachers across the United States. Despite her desire to help her coworkers to bridge gaps and build understanding across cultural, ethnic, and religious norms by engaging discussion around current events and educating her students to minimize misunderstanding, Hashem’s actions were allegedly interpreted to have political overtones and misrepresented agendas. As such, Hashem claims that she was subject to a heightened level of discrimination by the school relative to her coworkers and became the target for egregious public posts on a student Facebook wall stating that Hashem’s brother was a terrorist, that she was anti-Israel, and that she threatened students who had different opinions and views.

According to her complaint, eleven days after showing her class the Malala video, Hashem was called into her supervisor’s office who told her that because of her religion, national origin, and background, she was not allowed to teach current events in the same ways that her coworkers did. She says that was further told that she “she should not mention Islam or the Middle East in her class” and that she was not to “bring her culture, life experience or background into the classroom” by the principal.

Hashem received a written notice on April 21, 2015 that her contract with the school would not be renewed. Subsequently, she was informed of the reasons and provided an opportunity to speak in front of the Board of Education for review. She appeared in front of the board on June 15, 2015, with approximately 60 students present to show support for Hashem, however they were not allowed to enter the deliberations and only five could speak on her behalf. Deliberations were held behind closed doors. On June 17, 2015, Hashem received notice that her employment and contract would be terminated on June 30, 2015. Approximately one month later, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents appeared at Hashem’s home because of an alleged threat she had made to the Board during her meeting for review.

Hunterdon County District has rejected all accusations made by Hashem as “brazenly false” and “frivolous.” It went on to explain that Hashem’s contract was simply not renewed and that the reasons for the non-renewal were explained to her, asserting that those reasons had nothing to do with religion or national origin as Hashem claims. The district expressed that “the board and the administration respect and embrace the diversity of the district’s employee and student population, and value the relationships it enjoys amongst persons of all faiths.” No further details have been provided by the district or any of the other defendants named as of yet.

The Complaint and Its Legalities

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem is the first legal step to starting the lawsuit against Hunterdon Central Regional High School and the others named in the suit. The nature of action in the complaint filed is for employment discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is prohibited from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Accordingly, the employer cannot engage in practices that treat individuals differently based on protected classes that include one’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such practices are classified as disparate treatment, are against the law, and can serve as the basis of a Title VII lawsuit. In order to prove disparate treatment, the employee must show that he or she was treated differently by his or her employer on the basis of the protected characteristics mentioned above. However, an employer can explain, but is not required to prove, that there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the treatment to which the employee must show that the employer’s reasoning is a pretext for discrimination, or a false reason that hides the true intentions of the employer.

Additionally, discriminatory consequences of employment practices are also considered in a Title VII legal analysis under disparate treatment, which allows the court to look beyond the isolated treatment of the individual and dive into employment practices that appear to be facially neutral (not discriminatory as a policy or on their face), but in practice subject a certain protected class to discrimination. Essentially, an employee must prove that a neutral policy or practice of an employer has a disproportionate effect on a protected group, which can sometimes be difficult as the courts do not have a specific threshold test or analysis but rather assess each situation on a case-by-case basis. However, if an employee is able to show adverse and discriminatory affects on a protected class, then the employer has to prove that its policies and conduct were justified as a business necessity.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides for a greater amount of protected characteristics including “race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, sex or sexual orientation, atypical cellular or blood trait, generic information, or service in the armed forces.” Further, employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of handicap, unless such a handicap would prohibit the employee from carrying out the essential functions of the job. Under New Jersey law, an individual is likely to have a successful claim if they are able to show that 1) they are in a protected class, 2) they were working up to the expectations of their employer, 3) they suffered adverse job action such as suspension or termination, and 4) they were replaced by an individual not in the protected class of the employee or that the adverse employment action was directly related to the employee’s protected status.

Hashem’s complaint outlined additional causes for her action including conspiracy to discriminate, deprivation of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, unlawful discharge with malice, and defamation per se.

What’s Next?

While the lawsuit is still in its beginning stages, supporters of Hashem suggest that in disallowing her to teach students the same curriculum and in the same manner as her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworkers, she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin pursuant to federal law. Further, her attorneys allege that she has been treated less favorably than her colleagues, particularly pertaining to the discriminatory nature of what she was and was not allowed to teach her students.

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem and her recollection of Hunterdon’s restrictions suggest that all of the prohibited lessons centered around current events, books, and influential people had a connection to Islam. Hashem claims that she taught in compliance and accordance to the school’s curriculum and the criticism she endured was often because of her assistance to other teachers for her specific skill set. Hashem’s supporters highlight that she was trying to help other teachers and provide insight and understanding that other teachers did not have, which is precisely why they came to her and asked for her help; that she was trying to bridge educational and cultural gaps while hoping for a more compassionate and understanding future generation.

Ironically, in trying to join the common cause to advocate for children’s education and showing Malala’s video, Sireen Hashem was allegedly fired for her educational implementation on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. We will have to wait and see how the lawsuit unravels and what is in store for Sireen Hashem pursuant to Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Resources

Primary

Hashem v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employment Law New Jersey: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Additional

The Huffington Post: Mother Upset Over School Assignment About Islam

The Malala Fund: Malala’s Story

The Daily Beast: Muslim Teacher Fired After Showing Malala Video

 Sandy Tolan: The Lemon Tree

 RT: Muslim Teacher Sues NJ School District for Pattern of Discrimination Over Her Religion

 The Huffington Post: New Jersey Teacher Says She Was Fired After Showing a Video of Malala

The New York Times: New Jersey School District Rejects Claim of Anti-Muslim Firing

FindLaw: Disparate Impact Discrimination

 McDermott, Will, & Emery: New EEOC Rule Significantly Increases Employer Burdens in ADEA Disparate Impact Cases

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sireen Hashem: Was her Firing Discriminatory? appeared first on Law Street.

RANT WARNING: Be advised, this post may cause bouts of annoyance, defeatism, and pessimism.

Courtesy of Wifflegif

Initially, I planned to write an upbeat post about the recent celebrations of pride happening across the country: the Puerto Rican Day Parade, LGBT Pride, America’s success in the World Cup, and the Fourth of July, to name a few. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate from these events a larger analysis of celebrating (or not) one’s identity. And then damn Hobby Lobby happened. Womp womp.

Last week, the Supreme Court held in two cases collectively referred to as Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of religious beliefs. Specifically, the Court found that the ACA’s contraception mandate was not the “least restrictive” way for the government to implement this law and thus it created too substantial a burden on the religious freedoms of the companies at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a less restrictive workaround in the ACA for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

More broadly, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued in her 35-page, no-I’m-not-retiring-yet-assholes, dissenting opinion, Hobby Lobby stands for the principle “that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That’s right: corporations are indeed people. Those legal entities (which, by the way, are created for the purpose of separating the individuals involved from the corporate entity so that those individuals may be shielded from legal liability) apparently eat, sleep, breath, love, and pray? They sound more human than Darth Vader Cheney.

And as persons, corporations can also speak freely (i.e., wholly bankroll political campaigns) and freely exercise their religion (i.e., infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights).

Hell, with the direction in which this Court is taking corporate personhood, businesses — like any actual individual person in this country — may be able to discriminate on a wider scale. What happens when a business owner’s religious beliefs clash with, say, Title VII’s ban on discrimination in employment? What happens when a business owner acts on his belief that being gay is a sin? In answering these questions, I keep seeing the Jim Crow days when business owners were free to discriminate on the basis of race; I keep seeing the 1980s when they were openly homophobic and sexist. That idea is indeed what makes this “a decision of startling breadth,” as Justice Ginsberg put it.

Sure, I understand that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles arguments are necessarily illogical. But tell that to African Americans who lived through the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal holding. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Hobby Lobby, did promise that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination (exemptions to our anti-discrimination laws). Call me cynical, call me a blasphemer, but frankly I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this Court’s word — this Court that has been so adept at totally flouting precedent and stare decisis when it suits its political ends. Remember Citizens United? Bush v. Gore anyone?

Courtesy of DPMS via Flickr

In fact, we need look no further than last Thursday. Just days after the Court issued its Hobby Lobby ruling, it granted an unsigned emergency order in a new case involving Wheaton College, finding that the very workaround it had hailed as a less restrictive means by which the government could implement the ACA was also unconstitutional — that it substantially burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. What on Earth?! In the span of less than a week Hobby Lobby has already gone further than Hobby Lobby!

So now I sit here wondering what’s next. I wonder how far down this road the Supreme Court will take us. Debbie Downer over here, I know. But this is seriously like the worst season finale ever.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Down the Hobby Lobby Rabbit Hole: Are Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Next? appeared first on Law Street.

With the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, people who choose to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes will not face criminal charges. But they could be at risk of losing their jobs. This ongoing debate between employees and employers continues to be fueled by state legislation and employment drug testing policy. The courts must now analyze and settle questions regarding the controversy. Although in certain states, employees are not breaking the law by using marijuana, employers continue to implement pre-screening and routine drug tests. Workers are beginning to take action against what they believe to be violations of their rights. This leads to an inherent disconnect between the law and companies’ policies – so here is everything you need to know about marijuana, employment, and drug testing policies.

History of Drug Testing

In order to explain the divide between state law and employee drug testing, let us examine the history of testing policies and procedures. Surprisingly, not all workplaces require drug testing; the power to choose whether or not to implement the procedure is given directly to the corporation. According to Drug Testing USA, there are three factors that are taken into consideration regarding employee drug testing laws:

“1) who can be tested and under what circumstances (pre‐employment, random, etc.), 2) how testing is to be conducted (in a law, via on‐site devices, etc.), and 3) the procedures to be observed by the testing entity.”

As a result, companies have the power to alter and update their employee requirements to align with state legislation. Yet, in recent cases, companies chose to adhere to their original methods. Later, we will examine how the courts respond when employees challenge employers’ practice.

Who is tested?

If employers do not require mandatory drug screenings, do they have the right to single out individuals and conduct a test based on “reasonable suspicions?” If they do, employers must be sure to adhere to a strict guideline of how they define suspicious behavior in order to avoid a lawsuit. According to the Northwest Justice Project, “it is legal for a private employer to require a drug test of its employees, unless the employer uses the test to discriminate against certain people.”

Who conducts the tests?

There is a discrepancy between the law and employee protocol. Although Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana, this does not mean that businesses have to follow suit. In a company’s defense, retaining a safe and efficient system is vital to the company reputation and prosperity. But an individual could argue that employee drug testing is a violation of their privacy. Since drug testing lacks federal legislation, and designates most of the power directly to the businesses themselves, it is a corporation’s decision whether to drug test or not.

Ethics: Is an employer testing for marijuana a violation of privacy?

Technically, drug testing is classified as a form of search and seizure. When employers choose to test employees, they are compromising the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights which read, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A common argument is that what an individual does on their own time should not be used against them professionally. The concept of employee drug testing is similar to employers researching their employees’ social media accounts. If a person chooses to party and live promiscuously on their own time, should employers have the right to judge the employee even if they are a capable and efficient worker? The employer could argue that this is a practical and fair assessment in evaluating employees. However, the employee could dispute that they have the right to privacy within their personal lives, and should not have to change their habits or filter their social media on account of being judged by an employer.

Case Study: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)

In a 1986 case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the National Treasury Employees Union argued that drug testing was violating their privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment. Originally the State Court of Eastern Louisiana ruled in their favor, yet the case ultimately went to the United States Court of Appeals. There, the court ruled that the government’s policy on drugs surpassed the desires of the union. Although testing potentially violated employees’ rights, “balancing the individual’s privacy expectations against the government’s special needs” became the basis for enacting the tests. The ruling outlined several factors which the employer must abide by to protect the employee’s rights and ultimately upheld the standard that, “no privacy invasions should be permitted unless some good end is served.” This case made drug testing legally applicable to businesses if they choose to enact such as policy as long as they abide by the ruling’s contingencies.

Case Study: Johnson v. City of Plainfield (1990)

 “Even if drug testing is found to be constitutional, we must measure what we have gained in finding the guilty against what we have wrought upon the innocent.”

-Johnson v. City of Plainfield

In Johnson v. City of Plainfield, the courts questioned the constitutionality of employee drug testing, and decided that it must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In 1986 in New Jersey, the City of Plainfield Fire Department employees were subjected to an abrupt urine test. Sixteen of the firefighters tested positive for unspecified drugs and were fired without pay. Several of the firefighters felt that accusations were false, and that certain medication could have tainted the urinalysis since no information was provided about those present substances. Additionally, they felt that their privacy had been violated because a member of the same sex had monitored them during the urine test. Finally, they argued that their morales were tainted by the positive drug tests. In the ruling, “[the] court suggest[ed] that the factual findings in this matter should cause us to pause in the nationwide rush toward massive and mandatory drug testing.” This case illustrated a shift from a more conservative stance on employee drug testing to a more reformed view.

Case Study: Colorado

Although marijuana is now legal in Colorado, not all businesses condone recreational usage. Section 6 of Amendment 64, which legalized recreational marijuana, states that:

“Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.”

Legally, employees can be tested for marijuana. According to The Denver Post, “despite marijuana’s legal status in Colorado, courts have ruled that employers have the right to fire workers for using pot, even off-duty.” There is no protection against losing your job because of marijuana use, so employees must make wise decisions when partaking in recreational use or they could be at risk for losing their jobs.

Does that violate employees’ rights and the law? According to Amendment 64, Colorado marijuana legalization, “specifically gives employers the right to have a Zero Tolerance Policy.” Therefore companies who choose to enact the policy are abiding by not only federal, but also state law.

Fox Business discusses how Colorado and Washington employers are wrestling with new marijuana laws:

Medical Marijuana

While Colorado and Washington have fully legalized marijuana, a more applicable nationwide debate is medical marijuana. Only a handful of states have provided legal protection to individuals with a prescription for medical marijuana. How do employers handle individuals who smoke to ease the symptoms of painful and sometimes crippling illnesses?

History of Legislation

The 1990 American with Disabilities Act protects individuals with disabilities. It assures that disabled citizens will receive protection from discrimination in the workplace and have the freedom to use certain aides to function in the workplace; yet it does not cover medical marijuana.

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 gives individuals some protection against criminal charges, such as possession, when they use cannabis for medical purposes. However, it does not include any safeguard for employees from being terminated for violating a company’s drug policy.

Finally, in the 2008 case, Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, individuals who used cannabis for medical purposes were denied protection from being terminated from their job.

However, there are some loopholes that certain states provide; in California, a smoker who uses medical marijuana can negotiate with the following letters:

1. Pre-employment Negotiation Letter (.doc).
2. Negotiation Letter for Currently Employed Patients (.doc)
3. Termination Negotiation Letter (.doc)

These letters do not guarantee an employee defense against termination, yet they give an employee a chance to petition to preserve their job.

To see a debate about the legality of medical marijuana in the workplace, click here:

Case Study: Brandon Coats v. Dish Network

In a 2010 Colorado case, a quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, was fired from the Dish Network for testing positive for marijuana. Coats smoked medical marijuana to alleviate severe pain he experienced on a regular basis. When Coats brought the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals  in 2013,  the court confirmed that Dish had the right to fire Coats for violating company drug policy. When Coats appealed, the appellate court ultimately ruled that: “federal law trumps state law.” Montana, Oregon, and Washington also heard similar cases. All cases resulted in the same ruling– federal law overrides state law, and employers can choose to terminate employees if they do not abide by the company’s drug policy.

Employers retain the right to test and terminate employees for testing positive for THC regardless of the circumstances.

Future Amendments

Will the legislation amend the requirements for employers to accept the use of medical marijuana? Individuals that suffer from chronic illnesses are put in potential financial jeopardy. Yet employers are liable for mistakes made on the job due to marijuana use. As of now, employers have no intention of changing the policy, and legislatures are leaving the power to the businesses. Is this ethical? It has been scientifically proven that marijuana can help with extreme illnesses in a way which no other medication can. Employers are putting individuals who are already in a precarious situation in jeopardy. On the other hand, businesses have a reputation to maintain and would like to remain efficient in a competitive field.

Legal Inconsistency Throughout the States

Currently, every case regarding employees’ rights to marijuana use has been overruled by federal law, which still sees marijuana as illegal. This legal generalization may not suffice with the innovations to state laws that continue to develop. Legislation needs to take into consideration all of the ripple effects that marijuana will have on businesses. When drug testing was deemed constitutionally appropriate, marijuana was distinctly illegal. Now with all of the unique exceptions and amendments to state laws, there are constant inconsistencies. National businesses are now also put in an difficult situation when dealing with the marijuana laws unique to their state– how does a nationwide company handle state-to-state laws regarding their policy on employee drug testing?  Legislation needs to step up and tie up all the loose ends to protect employees as well as protect corporations from being sued by individuals who feel that their rights are being challenged.

Resources

Primary

US District Court, New Jersey: Johnson v. City of Plainfield

US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit: National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

Department of Labor: Drug-Free Workplace Policy Builder

California EDD: Misconduct MC 270

Additional

Regulate Marijuana: Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012

MAPI: Changing State Marijuana Laws and Employer Drug Testing Policies

The New York Times: Creating Confusion in the Workplace

Americans for Safe Access: Employment 

Huffington Post: Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats’ Case Could Change Everything

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Marijuana is Legalized, What Limits Can Employers Impose? appeared first on Law Street.