Fitch Law Partners LLP
Excellence in Complex Litigation
617-542-5542

December 2017 Archives

Medical Marijuana in the Workplace

In a recent landmark decision, Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that an employer that terminated an employee for testing positive for marijuana use (which violated the company's policy) could be found to have discriminated against the employee on the basis of her handicap. At the time she was hired, Barbuto was informed that the company would require her to undergo a drug test. She informed the company that her physician had provided her a written certification that allowed her to use marijuana for medical purposes, due to the fact that she suffered from a debilitating medical condition under Massachusetts law; she also agreed that she would not use marijuana before work. The employer told her that a positive result for marijuana would not disqualify her from the position. Despite having made that assurance, following Barbuto's first day of work Advantage Sales terminated her employment due to the positive drug test, on grounds that the company followed federal law, not state law. The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, while legal in Massachusetts at the time (the non-medicinal use of marijuana had not yet been legalized), was still a crime pursuant to federal law. Therefore, the use marijuana for medical purposes, even while legal in Massachusetts, could still subject the user to federal criminal prosecution. Barbuto sued Advantage Sales, alleging (among other things) that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her handicap. In Massachusetts, a "handicap" is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of a person (or a record of having such impairment or being regarded as having such impairment). Massachusetts law prohibits employers from terminating or refusing to hire an employee because of their handicap if that employee is capable of performing the essential functions of the position involved with "reasonable accommodation," unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation that would need to be made would impose an undue hardship to the employer's business. A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment or modification to a job (or the way it is done or the environment in which it is done) that makes it possible for the handicapped individual to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer who receives a request for a reasonable accommodation from a handicapped person is required by Massachusetts law to engage in an interactive process with the employee to ascertain whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and, if not, whether another accommodation can be made that would be reasonable. The Massachusetts medical marijuana law provides, "Any person meeting the requirements under this law shall not be penalized under Massachusetts law in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for such actions." Advantage Sales claimed it owed Barbuto no obligation to participate in the interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation before it terminated her employment because, it alleged, the accommodation she sought violated a federal statute and was, consequently, unreasonable. It also alleged that she was terminated because she failed the drug test in violation of company policy, not because of her handicap. The SJC rejected Advantage Sales' first argument on grounds that the fact that Barbuto's possession of medical marijuana violated federal law does not make it per se unreasonable as an accommodation. It noted that only the employee was at risk of federal criminal prosecution for her possession of the medical marijuana, not the employer. It concluded that to hold otherwise would operate to deny handicapped employees the right to or privilege of a reasonable accommodation under Massachusetts law. It also pointed out that, even if the requested accommodation had been unreasonable, Advantage Sales was still obligated to participate in the interactive process of trying to craft another, equally effective accommodation that was reasonable (which it had not done). The Court rejected Advantage Sales' second argument on grounds that it would permit employers to enact policies that would enable them to do an end-run around handicap discrimination laws (i.e., by adopting company policies that would deny employees reasonable accommodations). The Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of Barbuto's claims of handicap discrimination and sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether her use of medical marijuana would impose an undue hardship on Advantage Sales' business and would, therefore, not be a reasonable accommodation. The Barbuto decision does not mean that employers must permit the use of marijuana even by handicapped employees. The significance of the decision is, instead, that use of medical marijuana might constitute a reasonable accommodation available to a qualified handicapped employee even if the employer has a no-tolerance drug policy or federal law prohibits the possession of marijuana. When the use of medical marijuana is proposed as an accommodation by a qualified handicapped employee, employers must engage in the interactive process to determine whether it is reasonable and, if not, whether another reasonable accommodation exists. 

The Positive-Selfish-Side of Effective Co-Parenting

In contested custody cases where a child rejects contact with a parent, the rejected parent often accuses the aligned parent of engaging in alienating behaviors that are intended to sever the attachment between the child and the rejected parent.

Obtaining Discovery in the U.S. for Use in Foreign Tribunals

Foreign litigants recently successfully sought the assistance of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in obtaining discovery of Massachusetts residents and a Massachusetts company for use in a foreign proceeding.  See In re Penner, No. 17-CV-12136-IT, 2017 WL 5632658 (D. Mass. Nov. 22, 2017).  The foreign litigants in that case relied on a Federal Statute, 28 U.S.C. ยง 1782, that permits U.S. District Courts to order discovery for use in foreign proceedings under certain circumstances.  Section 1782 provides, in pertinent part, "[t]he district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal."  In granting discovery pursuant to Section 1782, the Penner court relied upon the United States Supreme Court's analysis of that statute in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

Can An Exchange Of Text Messages Between Real Estate Brokers Create An Enforceable Contract For The Sale of Land?

Nowadays, it is not uncommon for real estate brokers to communicate with their clients and negotiate deals through text messages. The use of text messages in that context has given rise to a new legal issue: whether an exchange of text messages between brokers can create an enforceable contract for the sale of land.

Mass. Appeals Court Rejects Bank's Attempt to Hold Surviving Spouse Liable for Late Husband's Refinancing Note

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently denied a mortgagee's attempt to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation to hold the surviving spouse of a mortgagor liable for a second mortgage on their residence--owned by the married couple as tenants in the entirety--that had been procured and signed only by the deceased spouse. 

50/50 Parenting: Quantity versus Quality

I recently came across Edward Kruk, PhD's article in Psychology Today entitled "Equal Parenting and the Quality of Parent-Child Attachments." The article summarizes research on parenting plans that I have found useful in support of some clients' requests for equal parenting time (R. Bauserman, "A meta-analysis of parental satisfaction, adjustment and conflict in joint custody and sole custody following divorce," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage [2012]; W.V. Fabricius, "Parenting time, parent conflict, parent-child relationships, and children's physical health," Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court [2011]).

International Arbitration War Wages Over Pineapples

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will be the next body to weigh in on a dispute between Del Monte International GmbH ("Del Monte") and Inversions y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. ("INPROTSA") over an exclusive sales agreement for pineapples. The case has been appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and the appeal raises issues of the finality of international arbitration awards.

ATM Operators Not Required to Disclose Third Party Fees

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland has confirmed that an ATM operator is not required to disclose the amount of fees charged by a third party, such as the cardholder's financial institution, for the transaction. The plaintiff in Alston v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103026 (D. Md. Aug. 5, 2016) filed a putative class action against Wells Fargo and Capital One arising from charges for his withdrawal from his Capital One account at a Wells Fargo ATM.

Massachusetts Superior Court Decides That Right to Arbitration was Waived Due to Litigation Conduct

In a recent Superior Court decision, a judge held that there is a presumption that courts, not arbitral tribunals, have exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitration by engaging in substantial litigation before a motion to compel arbitration was filed.

Construction Defects In Condominiums: What Owners And Prospective Buyers Should Know About Common Areas

An often-overlooked downside to the surging real estate market is that the demand for good contractors often exceeds the supply. As a result, the risk of poor quality construction tends to rise as builders rush to complete jobs or use workers that are not up to the task. In the context of condominiums, the risks of construction defects present some unique complications for unit owners when the defect is found in a common area such as a roof, elevator, or staircase.

Contact Us

Fitch Law Partners LLP
1 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108

Phone: 617-542-5542
Fax: 617-542-1542
Boston Law Office Map

Fitch Law Partners LLP
56 Pine St
Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-521-6500
Fax: 401-274-2780
Providence Law Office Map

Fitch Law Partners LLP
110 Cedar Street
Suite 250
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481

Phone: 781-205-4311
Fax: 617-542-1542
Map & Directions