Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Fla.: Battalion Chief with Florida medical marijuana certificate was not qualified individual under the ADA, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“Nevertheless, the Court ends where it began: Federal law makes the medical use of marijuana unlawful.”

Despite a constitutional amendment in Florida providing that the medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient is not subject to criminal liability under Florida law, a Battalion Chief who had obtained a certification for medical marijuana use from the state for a gastrointestinal condition, and who was suspended and demoted after testing positive for medical marijuana, was not a qualified individual under the ADA as his use of marijuana was illegal under federal law and his implicit request to use medical marijuana was not reasonable under the ADA. His ADA retaliation and state-law disability discrimination claims also failed on summary judgment (Beckman v. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, No. 2:24-cv-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2026)).

Hired by the county in 2006 as an Emergency Medical Technician, the employee was promoted to Battalion Chief in 2016. He suffered from a gastrointestinal condition and when multiple medications failed to help him manage his condition, he obtained a certification for medical marijuana use from the State of Florida. In 2020, he disclosed his certification to the chief and deputy chief and periodically requested and received paid time off to manage his condition.

Positive drug test. In September 2023, the employee, who had been selected for random drug testing, tested positive for marijuana and was immediately placed on unpaid administrative leave. He was cleared to return to work the next month after testing negative and signing a behavioral action plan that included among other things a 30-day suspension credited as time served and a demotion from Battalion Chief II to Paramedic II with a 24 percent pay cut. Unwilling to accept the demotion, he resigned and sued under the ADA and state law.

Federal vs. state law. As an initial matter, the court noted that, under federal law, marijuana is currently categorized as a Schedule I drug and its use is unlawful. Florida law also classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. A 2016 constitutional amendment, however, provides that “[t]he medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient or caregiver in compliance with this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law.” In 2017, the Florida legislature enacted Fla. Stat. § 381.986 as the legislative framework to implement and regulate the constitutional amendment. The statute also protects an employer's right to maintain and enforce a drug-free workplace and clarifies that it does not create a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination.

ADA disability discrimination claim. In response to the employee’s claim he was subjected to unlawful disability discrimination under federal law, the county argued that he was not a qualified individual under the ADA because he was engaging in the illegal use of drugs. Although he was using marijuana pursuant to his Florida certification, this nonetheless constituted illegal use of drugs under federal law, said the court, and the county imposed the discipline on the basis of such drug use. And while the ADA provides that the “illegal use of drugs... does not include the use of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health care professional, or other uses authorized by the Controlled Substance Act,” the employee’s use of marijuana was not an “other use[]” authorized by the Controlled Substance Act.

As to the employee’s argument he was a qualified individual under Florida law because “[w]hen conduct is constitutionally protected under state law, federal classification cannot eliminate state civil rights protections,” the court pointed out that the “use of marijuana, even pursuant to his Florida certificate, was illegal under federal law, and the statutory exclusion is not satisfied by the Florida medical marijuana program.” Thus, he was not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Causation. Nor was the employee able to establish causation between the adverse employment action and his gastrointestinal disability. He was disciplined for using marijuana as his remedy-of-choice in violation of the county’s Drug Free Work policy and federal law, explained the court, not for his medical condition.

Pretext. Also rejected was the employee’s contention the county’s stated reason for the employment action—his failed drug test—was pretextual. Though he pointed to the chief’s testimony his discipline was more severe than it should have been, the chief’s personal view of the severity of the punishment did not establish that the employee was punished for his disability rather than his marijuana use. Moreover, said the court, there was evidence that 22 of 24 persons who had tested positive for drugs while employed by the county were terminated.

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The employee also argued that he could have performed the essential functions of his job with a reasonable accommodation. But even construing his statements to the chief about obtaining a medical marijuana certificate and his disclosures about his use of medical marijuana as an accommodation request, it was not a reasonable request under the ADA, said the court, because medical marijuana use is illegal under federal law.

Interactive process. As to the employee’s claim the county was required to engage in a good-faith interactive process with regard to his disability disclosures, the court again pointed out that his requested accommodation was illegal under federal law and thus there was nothing to interact about. Based on all of this, the court granted summary judgment against the employee’s ADA disability discrimination claim.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s ADA retaliation claim, the court again noted that his disclosures constituted implicit requests for the use of medical marijuana. Those disclosures occurred in October 2020, April 2021, and September 2022 and his implicit requests were denied. He did not receive and sign the behavioral action plan, however, until October 2023 and thus the elapsed time between his protected activity and the adverse action was, on its own, too remote to support an inference of retaliation. Nor, said the court, was it his request for an accommodation that led to his discipline but rather his continued use of an illegal drug. Thus, the court granted summary judgment against this claim as well.

FCRA claim. Finally, in support of his Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) disability discrimination claim, the employee argued that he was a qualified individual under Florida law because the Florida Constitution explicitly protects the medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient or caregiver. While he relied heavily on a state circuit court case that found medical marijuana use was protected under state law, that decision, said the court here, was not only on appeal, “state trial court decisions do not bind federal courts as a final expression of state law.”

Further, said the court, “Florida law is clear that the FCRA follows federal law as set forth in the ADA, and that law still classifies marijuana as an unlawful drug.” Moreover, the court observed, Florida’s medical marijuana law protects an employer's right to maintain and enforce a drug-free workplace. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the county on the employee’s FCRA claims.

The case is 2:24-cv-585-JES-DNF.

Judge: Steele, J.

Attorneys: Benjamin H. Yormak (Yormak Employment & Disability Law) for John Beckman. John F. Potanovic, Jr. (Boy Agnew Potanovic Miller) for The Collier County Board of County Commissioners.

Companies: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims Cannabis FloridaNews GCNNews