Discrimination, disabilities, and drug testing: Employer’s inconsistencies sunk its case

David had a long history with his employer. He also had a spinal condition that caused severe lower back pain. He asked for accommodations, including modified schedules and medical leave, which his employer gave him.

One day, David held a staff meeting where he allegedly sat down, put his feet up on a counter, and mentioned that he had eaten some kind of gummy. Some coworkers claimed that David appeared lethargic and overmedicated during the meeting. They also alleged that David said he needed to take smaller doses of the gummy in the future and that he drew a picture to illustrate how much he should eat.

After the meeting, attendees reported David’s conduct to a company director, then HR. These people then met with David to discuss the situation. During this meeting, David denied ever having used marijuana, but admitted to using cannabidiol (CBD), a natural substance found in marijuana, and agreed to be drug tested.

The employer interpreted the drug test results as having levels of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, and fired David.

The lawsuit

David fired back with a lawsuit, denying being lethargic or over-medicated at the meeting. He claimed the employer fired him because of his disability and for requesting accommodations, violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He pointed to inconsistencies in the employer’s reasoning, that his worsening condition and need for accommodations were the reasons it fired him. He also had evidence that the employer treated other similarly situated employees more leniently.

The employer countered that it fired David based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including:

• His conduct during the staff meeting,
• A positive drug test, and
• Dishonesty about marijuana use.

It maintained that its fitness-for-duty policy justified its actions.

The outcome

The court found enough issues to let several of David’s claims proceed to trial, particularly those involving discrimination and retaliation. It dismissed, however, the FMLA interference claims.

It said that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer treated David unusually harshly soon after management noticed his disability worsening and after he began to miss work to attend full-day physical therapy sessions.

The employer testified that it didn’t fire David because of his drug test results, but the termination letter stated that the drug test was a reason for his termination.

The court also pointed to the employer policy, which typically allows employees who test positive for marijuana to return to work under a Last Chance Agreement (LCA). The employer, however, didn’t offer David the opportunity to return under an LCA.

The employer’s shifting arguments resulted in the court denying its request to have the case dismissed.

Rheem v. UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals, Middle District of Pennsylvania, No. 1:23-CV-00075, October 27, 2025.