1. What aspects do you agree or disagree with and why

2. How this would and similarly ruled cases set precedence over future “federal rules v state rules” cases about the use of marijuana. As more and more states continue to legalize the usage would this case set the precedence of ruling in favor of the state laws. If the federal government were to legalize the usage of marijuana would this then overrule any state law that may prohibit usage, or would they once again fall back on past cases where the ruling favored the state laws

CASE

Plaintiff Noffsinger was offered a job by the defendant, Niantic Operating CO., d/b/s Bride Brook Health & Rehab, that was then rejected due to a positive drug test. This took place in the state of Connecticut, which under Palliative Use of Marijuana Act) PUMA, the usage of marijuana -which is what plaintiff tested positive for – for medicinal purposes is allowed. It also states that this “…bars an employer from refusing to hire a person…under state law.” (Bennett-Alexander et al., 2021). The defendant used the “federal funding” defense, stating that they are bounded by this to keep a “drug-free” environment. At last, the plaintiff was granted summary judgement for this case, on the basis of employment discrimination, but will not award attorney fees or punitive damages.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1l agree with the courts decision to grant summary judgment for the plaintiff on the basis of employ... View the full answer