On February 11, 2011, Judge Robert Jonker declined to create a new protected class for medical marihuana patients in Michigan.  Joseph Casias, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor, worked at a Wal-Mart store in Battle Creek.  The former associate of the year was injured while on the job and was subsequently required, under Wal-Mart's national policy, to submit to a drug test.  After testing positive for marihuana, Wal-Mart's corporate office made the decision to terminate Mr. Casias.   

Mr. Casias brought an action for wrongful discharge alleging that Wal-Mart's application of its drug testing policy violated the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA).  The Court disagreed, holding that the MMMA did not create a private right of action for wrongful discharge because it was intended to address potential adverse action by the state, not to regulate private employment.  The Court opined that the plaintiff's theory would create a new protected class for medical marihuana users and mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment.

The Court reached this decision by interpreting the word "business" in Section 4(a) of the MMMA to modify "licensing board or bureau" rather than as a stand-alone term.  Whenever the word appeared in the statute, it was followed by that qualifying phrase thus precluding the term from incorporating the entire realm of private employment. 

The plain language of the MMMA does not give medical marihuana patients the same kind of employment protection offered to other protected classes such as religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.  This type of safeguard would extend the statute's protection beyond its intentions.  Therefore, a medical marihuana patient may be discharged from an at-will position even if the patient is qualified under the MMMA.

Because this opinion specifically addressed the rights of private at-will employees, it is unclear whether the same reasoning would apply to public or state employees; however, it is likely that this opinion could be used as guidance when making a more definitive decision regarding public employment rights.