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

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

