PHILADELPHIA – A former Thomas Jefferson University hospital employee who alleged her legitimate use of medical marijuana led to her dismissal from the facility has been permitted to proceed with her case.
A Jan. 7 ruling from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert gave the green-light to Donna R. Hudnell’s case versus Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc.
“Hudnell worked at Jefferson from 2016 to 2019. In 2018, she began experiencing significant back pain and in May of 2019 Jefferson granted her request to work from home full-time. Eventually, Hudnell’s back pain required surgery and Jefferson granted her leave from July to September of 2019. When she requested to return to work in October of 2019, Jefferson required her to take a drug test because she had been on leave for over 90 days,” Pappert said.
“Hudnell reported for the drug test and provided the administering nurse copies of her prescriptions, including an expired medical marijuana card. The nurse told Hudnell the medical marijuana card had expired in August and proceeded with the drug test. After the drug test, Hudnell’s doctor re-certified her for medical marijuana use and Hudnell renewed her card, but Jefferson terminated her shortly thereafter. Hudnell tried several times to discuss and resolve the situation with Jefferson to no avail.”
Hudnell then filed discrimination charges and the instant lawsuit for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.
The Court previously dismissed Hudnell’s PHRA and PFPO claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After exhausting those remedies and re-alleging the claims in Counts I and III of the third amended complaint, Jefferson moved to dismiss those counts.
In Count I, Hudnell alleges Jefferson violated the PHRA by failing to accommodate her disability – since under the PHRA, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate on the basis of a non-job-related handicap or disability.
Meanwhile, Jefferson argues only that Hudnell fails to allege a PHRA-protected disability – though Pappert disagreed with that view.
“In arguing that Hudnell fails to plead a valid disability under the PHRA, Jefferson misconstrues the Third Amended Complaint and relies on inapposite case law,” Pappert stated.
Jefferson referred to another case where the plaintiff argued that her prescribed use of medical marijuana qualified as a disability under the PHRA, and alleged Hudnell made the same claim.
“But Hudnell makes no such claim. She alleges she suffered from a herniated disk and ‘related spinal injuries’ which caused her pain and limited her ability to ‘perform manual tasks, walk, and sleep.’ She also claims that Jefferson previously accommodated this disability by letting her work from home in 2019. [The case law] does not support dismissal here because Hudnell has alleged a disability apart from her medical marijuana use,” Pappert said.
In Count III, Hudnell alleges Jefferson retaliated against her in violation of the PHRA, which Jefferson denied Hudnell’s usage of medical marijuana fell under the auspices of the PHRA.
However, Pappert said that next argument failed for two reasons.
“First, Hudnell does not claim that her report of medical marijuana usage was protected activity. Instead, she claims her requests for reasonable accommodations for her disability, such as her request to split time between working in Jefferson’s office and her home, qualify as protected activity. That claim satisfies her burden at this stage of the litigation because requesting an accommodation is a protected employee activity under the [PHRA],” Pappert said.
“Second, Jefferson’s argument ignores that ‘retaliation claims differ from discrimination claims under the PHRA ‘in that they do not require a plaintiff to prove he or she has an actual disability; rather, a plaintiff need only show that he or she requested an accommodation in good faith. So whether Hudnell’s medical marijuana “usage falls outside the PHRA’s definition of ‘handicap or disability’ has no bearing on whether she states a claim for retaliation. Accordingly, Hudnell has alleged protected activity sufficient to support a retaliation claim.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01621
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com