COA: Lansing utility can rescind job offer.

Byline: Thomas Franz

A Michigan Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of a public utility accused of violating the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act by rescinding a job offer after the candidate tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

In Eplee v. City of Lansing (MiLW No. 08-99541, 12 pages), defendant Lansing Board of Water and Light rescinded the offer following the drug screen that was part of the hiring process. Plaintiff Angela Eplee asserted in her complaint that the defendant was prohibited from denying her "any right or privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action" based on her medical marijuana use.

The panel affirmed the Ingham County Circuit Court, which ruled that the defendants were "immune from any type of lawsuit like this," that the conditional offer of employment did not constitute a contract of employment because it could be withdrawn at any time, and that it was an offer for a "job that has no job security whatsoever."

The panel ruled that the statute "does not provide an independent right protecting the medical use of marijuana in all circumstances, nor does it create a protected class for users of medical marijuana."

The Feb. 19 unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Mark J. Cavanagh, Stephen L. Borrello and James Robert Redford.

COA analysis

The appeals court opinion stated that the plaintiff "cannot point to any legal right that she had to be employed by the BWL."

"Plaintiff never alleged that the offered employment was not at-will, and she did not allege any facts even suggesting that the employment was not at-will. Plaintiff has not alleged that she had a contract with the BWL providing for a definite term of employment or prohibiting discharge without just cause," the opinion stated. "Accordingly, plaintiff has not rebutted the presumption that the position offered to her by the BWL was terminable at the will of the BWL.

"If the BWL would have been able to terminate plaintiff's employment at any time after her employment began for any or no reason, it logically follows that the BWL could rescind its conditional offer of employment at any time and for any or no reason at all."

The appeals court opinion states that the plain language of 4(a) of the MMMA is clear that the statute does not provide for a cause of action in instances such as presented here, where a plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he or she was "subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right...