Rhode Island Superior Court Decision Holds that Employers Cannot Refuse to Hire Medical Marijuana Cardholders
2 min read
Jul 18, 2017
The Rhode Island Superior Court recently issued a decision in Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corp. holding that defendant employer violated Rhode Island's Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act ("the Act") by refusing to hire a prospective employee who was a medical marijuana cardholder. The ruling is a first in Rhode Island, and a departure from other states' decisions, such as New Mexico and Colorado, that have found in favor of the employer.
During Callaghan's application process, she disclosed she was a medical marijuana patient, and acknowledged that she would fail the employer's required pre-employment drug screening. She also confirmed that she would not use marijuana at work or bring marijuana to work. Despite this, Callaghan was not hired based on her inability to comply with defendants' drug-free work policy or pass a drug test.
In her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argued that defendants' action was unlawful pursuant to Section 21-28.6-4(d) of Rhode Island's medical marijuana act, which states that an employer may not refuse to employ someone solely for her status as a medical marijuana cardholder. Defendants argued that they did not refuse to hire Callaghan based on her status as a cardholder, but rather based on her use of a federally illegal substance, and therefore could not be held liable under the statute.
The Court rejected defendants' reasoning, holding the statute's plain language prohibiting an employer from denying employment based on a person's cardholder status also protects a cardholder's right to use medical marijuana. To construe the statute otherwise would render it meaningless, and its protections illusory.
This decision provides further guidance to employers in Rhode Island, who should be cognizant of the express protection provided for employees under its medical marijuana act in implementing hiring policies. However, employers should also be aware that the Act does not require employers to make accommodations for medical marijuana use, and specifically prohibits any person from undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.
Featured Insights

Webinar
Oct 29, 2026
Carol Rooney Presents on Building a Career in Appellate Practice

In The News
Oct 28, 2026
James Ferrara Comments in The New York Times on Stalled Boca Raton Luxury Condo Project

Insights for Insurers Alert
Oct 28, 2026
Insurance and Reinsurance Commutations, Run-Off, and Loss Portfolio Transfers

Healthcare Alert
Oct 27, 2026
Illinois Medical Aid-in-Dying Law Takes Effect Amid Legal Challenges

In The News
Oct 26, 2026
Scott Seaman Examines the Insurance Coverage Implications of a Recent NFL Concussion Ruling

In The News
Oct 23, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses Potential Impact of Proposition 44 on California Community Clinics

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation




