Employment Law Observer

The ever-changing landscape of medical marijuana laws in states across the nation has given rise to several lawsuits regarding an employer’s right to enforce anti-drug policies against employees who hold valid state-issued medical marijuana licenses. As the Employment Law Observer has previously reported, the Colorado Supreme Court and a federal district court in New Mexico previously held that these states’ medical marijuana laws do not impose any duty on employers to accommodate medical marijuana use. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is set to weigh in on the issue next.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge begins to run on the date of resignation, not the date of the employer’s last discriminatory act, resolving a circuit split. As a result, in determining the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, constructive discharge cases will be treated the same way as actual discharge cases.

In Peng v. First Republic Bank, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District rejected an employee’s contention that a company’s standard arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

Here is a pattern that tends to repeat itself often in employment litigation. A disgruntled employee sues an employer for discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination. A lawsuit is filed. And then, the attorney who files the suit includes wage and hour claims — i.e., the non-payment of overtime, meal and rest breaks. The employee may also include a claim based on the failure to reimburse the employee for expenses incurred in the course of his or her employment.

In Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, decided on February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court addressed the following question:

A nurse who worked at an orthopedic spine center claimed that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, a doctor who was the owner of the center. When she refused to leave her husband to be with the doctor, he allegedly fired her. She filed suit, claiming gender discrimination as well as wrongful discharge against both the center and the doctor. Both parties filed motions to dismiss, and the doctor prevailed on his motion because the district court found that wrongful discharge claims by an employee are cognizable only against the employer and not against supervisors in their individual capacity. The nurse appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which then certified the following question to the Virginia Supreme Court: