May 25, 2012

“The Weed Made Me Do It:” Marijuana Misconduct on the Job in Wisconsin

What is an employer in Wisconsin to do when an employee tests positive for marijuana use on a random workplace drug test? What if the employee claims he is addicted and that is what caused him to smoke pot? The Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Galindo v. LIRC, No. 2010AP430 (Wis. App. Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished decision), found that the positive drug test at issue was misconduct despite the employee’s assertion that his ingestion of marijuana had not been intentional, but rather due to his self-proclaimed drug addiction.

Albert Galindo worked at Ashley Furniture in the upholstery assembly area. According to Ashley Furniture’s work rules, an employee “who tests positive as a result of a random/universal drug test will be discharged from further employment.” Indeed, Mr. Galindo had acknowledged in writing that he received a copy of the work rules as well as the employer’s substance abuse policy.

Unfortunately for Mr. Galindo, however, he subsequently tested positive for marijuana use. As a result, he lost his job when Ashley Furniture followed its policy and discharged him. Newly unemployed, Mr. Galindo sought unemployment benefits, the subsequent denial of which led to his case being appealed first to the Circuit Court, and then to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Generally, an employee in Wisconsin is ineligible for unemployment benefits when the discharge is for misconduct connected with his or her employment. The issue, therefore, was whether Mr. Galindo’s positive test for marijuana use was “misconduct.” In his defense, Mr. Galindo argued that he had not engaged in misconduct because his ingestion of marijuana had not been intentional. It was attributable, instead, to his documented drug addiction to marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol.

When his case came before the Labor and Industry Review Commission (the “Commission”), the Commission did not buy Mr. Galindo’s argument, and found that his positive drug test result did constitute misconduct. On appeal, however, the Circuit Court reversed the Commission, and found his use of marijuana was not misconduct. On appeal again, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court and agreed with the Commission that his drug use and later  positive drug test was misconduct. As a result, Mr. Galindo was deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted that expert opinion would have been required to establish that Mr. Galindo did in fact have an addiction. Accordingly, as a layman, Mr. Galindo’s own opinion that he had a drug addiction was not legally sufficient. Moreover, the Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Mr. Galindo’s other evidence was sufficient to establish his addiction. Without any expert opinion to support his assertion, therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that his actions constituted misconduct for purposes of unemployment insurance.

The message to employers is that it’s important to have a clear policy similar to Ashley Furniture’s work rules, stating explicitly that a positive drug test is a work rule violation and will result in discharge. A clear policy and proper drug testing protocols will allow employers to maintain a safe, drug free environment and enforce consequences on the rule breakers.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Chuck Palmer is Office Managing partner in Michael Best’s Waukesha Office. He also is a member of the Employment Relations Practice Group and Co-Chair of the Construction Group. He focuses his practice in labor negotiations, employment and safety related litigation, Equal Employment Opportunity law, Pipeline and Construction Safety laws, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws and regulations, restrictive covenants, independent contractor and employment contracts, and workers compensation. 

262-956-6518

About the Author

Partner

Scott Beightol, a partner in the Milwaukee office, represents businesses in all aspects of employment and labor relations, with special emphasis in litigation of discrimination, non-compete and other matters in federal and state court, the NLRB, and arbitration. Mr. Beightol counsels clients on workforce structure, HR audits and best practices, complex termination and disability/FMLA matters, union avoidance, and union relation matters involving labor negotiations and arbitrations.

414-225-4994

Contributors

Associate

Matthew Kurlinski is an attorney in the Milwaukee office and a member of the Employment Relations Practice Group. His practice includes all aspects of labor and employment law.

414.225.2788

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.