## Facts

- Katelin Noffsinger was diagnosed with PTSD and, on a provider’s recommendation, used medical marijuana at night to treat symptoms.
- She registered as a qualifying patient under the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).
- SSC Niantic Operating Company, LLC (a nursing and rehabilitation facility) offered her a position as Activities Manager, contingent on pre-employment screening, including a drug test.
- During onboarding paperwork, Noffsinger disclosed her status as a registered medical marijuana patient, stated she used marijuana only at night in pill form, and provided evidence of dosage.
- Her urine test was positive for THC, consistent with marijuana use.
- After learning of her medical marijuana use, the employer rescinded the job offer.
- Noffsinger sued, alleging the rescission violated PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision barring refusal to hire “solely” based on a person’s status as a qualifying patient.

## Issues

1. Whether PUMA’s employment anti-discrimination provision implies a private right of action for applicants or employees.
2. Whether federal law preempts PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision, including the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA).
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged the offer was rescinded “solely” because of PUMA-protected qualifying-patient status or PUMA-compliant use.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss in substantial part, allowing the PUMA employment discrimination claim to proceed.
- The court held PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision implies a private right of action enforceable by individuals.
- The court held the CSA, ADA, and DFWA do not preempt PUMA’s employment anti-discrimination protection.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged the offer was rescinded solely because Noffsinger was a qualifying patient who used medical marijuana in compliance with PUMA and tested positive for THC.

## Legal Principles

- A Connecticut statute may imply a private right of action where the text and structure confer specific individual rights, the legislative purpose supports private enforcement, and no adequate alternative enforcement mechanism exists.
- PUMA’s employment provision prohibits adverse employment action taken solely due to an individual’s qualifying-patient status or PUMA-compliant medical marijuana use, while not requiring employers to permit on-site use or workplace impairment.
- The CSA’s federal prohibition of marijuana does not, by itself, create a conflict that requires employers to refuse to hire or discharge state-authorized medical marijuana users; a state non-discrimination rule can coexist with federal criminal enforcement.
- The ADA’s exclusion for “illegal use of drugs” under federal law does not preempt a state’s decision to provide broader, independent employment protections.
- The DFWA generally requires covered employers to maintain drug-free workplace policies and reporting mechanisms, but does not mandate refusal to hire or termination based solely on off-duty, state-authorized medical marijuana use.
- Statutory carve-outs allowing adverse action when required by federal law or necessary to maintain federal funding or contracts are construed to require a concrete federal requirement, not a generalized reference to federal illegality.

## Conclusion

The court held that PUMA’s employment anti-discrimination provision is privately enforceable and not preempted by federal drug or employment statutes, and it permitted the applicant’s claim to proceed where she plausibly alleged her job offer was rescinded solely due to her lawful (under state law) medical marijuana status and related positive THC test.


Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., 273 F. Supp. 3d 326 (D. Conn. 2017)