In a notable legal decision that reiterates the stringent boundaries of disability and age discrimination under U.S. law, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of L. Perrigo Company, dismissing claims filed by former employee Steve Arndt. Arndt had contested his termination, arguing it was due to age and wrongful perception of disability. This article delves into the complexities of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications of the court's decision.
Steve Arndt, a 61-year-old facilities electrician turned vision system technician, was terminated from Perrigo after testing positive for marijuana—a result he attributed to the use of a lip balm containing hemp oil. Perrigo, a leading U.S. manufacturer of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, maintains a zero-tolerance stance on drug use, employing third-party testing to enforce this policy.
Arndt's legal challenge revolved around the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), contending that his dismissal was based on the company's misperception of him as a drug user, equating this misperception with disability. Additionally, he suggested that age discrimination was a contributing factor to his termination.
The crux of the Sixth Circuit's decision lay in the interpretation of what constitutes a "disability" under the ADA. The court emphasized that merely perceiving an employee as a user of illegal drugs does not equate to perceiving them as having a disabling impairment. Moreover, Arndt failed to demonstrate that Perrigo regarded him as having a disability that substantially limited one or more major life activities, a key component of the ADA's protection scope.
Regarding the age discrimination claim under the ADEA, the court noted that Arndt could not prove that his age was the basis for his dismissal. The company's honest belief that Arndt violated its drug policy—regardless of the lip balm's potential effects—served as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination.
The court's ruling underscores the rigorous standards required to establish claims of discrimination based on perceived disability and age. It highlights the significance of employers maintaining clear, well-documented policies and procedures, especially concerning compliance issues like drug testing.
For employees, the decision serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of protection under employment discrimination laws, particularly in cases involving compliance with workplace policies. It also sheds light on the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in discrimination claims.
The Sixth Circuit's affirmation of Steve Arndt's case dismissal provides a clear message on the boundaries of the ADA and ADEA. It reinforces the principle that without concrete evidence of discrimination or a substantial legal basis, employee claims against terminations that align with established company policies are unlikely to succeed.
This decision not only clarifies aspects of employment law concerning drug use and discrimination but also stresses the judicial system's role in interpreting statutory protections in the context of evolving workplace norms and societal values.
In recent times, Pleasantrees, a cannabis retailer in Michigan, has found itself in a swirl of controversy over its checkout practices. Reports from customers suggest that the retailer may be engaging in illegal rounding-up of transaction totals, leading to allegations of violating Michigan Consumer Protection laws.
A compilation of customer experiences shared on Reddit highlights growing dissatisfaction with Pleasantrees. Several patrons have noted that their bill totals at checkout were higher than the amounts confirmed during online ordering. Notably, these discrepancies arise from the company's purported policy of rounding up totals to the nearest dollar due to an alleged coin shortage triggered by the pandemic.
According to one account, a customer who expected to pay the exact total as shown on their online order was surprised at the counter when the amount demanded was higher. Even the printed receipt displayed the correct total, including taxes, but the computer system rounded up. When questioned, the management referred to a policy that mandates rounding up totals exceeding fifty cents to the nearest dollar post-tax.
In defense of its practices, Pleasantrees points to notices on its website and online ordering platform. These notices explicitly state that due to a federal coin shortage, all transactions will be rounded to the nearest dollar, and that the store does not accept coins. This policy, which has been in place for nearly two years, suggests that customers are forewarned about the rounding up practice at the point of online purchase.
However, legal experts and consumer rights advocates argue that even if such a policy is disclosed, the manner of its implementation may still fall foul of the law. Michigan statutes demand that any rounding policy must be clearly and conspicuously communicated to consumers, ideally at the physical point of sale or verbally during the transaction. The apparent lack of such disclosures at physical checkout points may constitute a violation of consumer protection laws.
This issue has sparked considerable debate among customers and industry observers. Some defend the company's policy as a legitimate response to logistical challenges posed by coin shortages during the pandemic. Others view it as an opportunistic move that exploits consumers, comparing it unfavorably with competitors who either round down or maintain exact change policies.
Moreover, past actions by Pleasantrees attempting to limit the operations of smaller cannabis caregivers have also colored public perception, contributing to a narrative of a corporation that might prioritize profits over fairness.
From a legal standpoint, the rounding up of prices without explicit consent at the point of sale is questionable. Michigan's consumer protection laws provide avenues for redressal, including compensation up to ten times the difference between the charged and actual price, capped at $5 per incident. These provisions aim to deter deceptive pricing practices and protect consumer rights.
As Pleasantrees navigates this controversy, the broader implications for trust and transparency in the retail cannabis market in Michigan are clear. Retailers must balance operational challenges with strict adherence to consumer protection laws to maintain credibility and trust with their customer base.
Joseph S. Dulak, a council member in Menominee, Michigan, is at the center of controversy over his alleged ties to a real estate transaction benefiting from the town's thriving cannabis market. Menominee, situated on the Upper Peninsula border, has been a hotspot for cannabis-related business due to its strategic location.
According to public records, a real estate firm associated with Dulak profited significantly from selling a property to a cannabis business. This firm, identified as Keeko LLC, is reportedly linked to Dulak's son, Joseph M. Dulak, who serves as its president. The property in question was purchased for $160,000 and sold a mere week later for $229,000, netting a $69,000 profit.
While no laws or local ethical guidelines were breached, the optics of the transaction have raised concerns among Dulak's peers on the city council. Councilman Michael DeDamos expressed discomfort with the situation, suggesting that although not illegal, the deal could exacerbate public suspicions and confirm doubts within the community.
The timing of the sale coincides with an intense and prolonged battle over cannabis profits in Menominee, involving legal, political, and commercial stakes. Councilman Dulak, despite his claims of non-involvement in Keeko's operational decisions, admitted in a court deposition that he is authorized to conduct property transactions on behalf of Keeko.
The city council's reaction has been mixed, with some members demanding more transparency and even calling for an external investigation into Dulak's real estate dealings with cannabis companies. The Michigan Attorney General's Office, however, has not indicated whether it will pursue an investigation into these allegations.
Further complicating matters, Upper Shelf Farms, the cannabis business that purchased the property from Keeko, has been granted a temporary occupancy permit to renovate the building. The company plans to open its doors this summer, which could bring more attention to the transaction.
Councilman Dulak defends his position, stating the real estate deal was straightforward and not influenced by any personal or professional ties to the cannabis industry. Nevertheless, the controversy persists, highlighting the challenges and scrutiny often associated with the intersection of public service and private business interests in the burgeoning cannabis market.
In a notable legal revival, a civil asset forfeiture case dating back to 2008 has resurfaced, with implications that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began following a drug raid on a Shiawassee County farmhouse, leading to the arrest and eventual imprisonment of Steven Ostipow for operating a cannabis grow site. In the course of the raid, property belonging to his parents, Gerald and Royetta Ostipow, was seized by the Saginaw County Sheriff's Department and never returned.
Despite the absence of legal justification for retaining the seized assets, including the farmhouse and a 1965 Chevy Nova, numerous appeals have failed to secure the return of the Ostipows' property. The legal battle has spanned several administrations, starting when Charlie Brown was sheriff of Saginaw County and continuing under the current sheriff, Bill Federspiel. The lengthy dispute has profoundly impacted the Ostipow family, leading attorney Phil Ellison to escalate the matter to the nation's highest court.
Ellison has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to address gaps in Michigan's laws regarding civil asset forfeiture. The existing legal framework lacks a mechanism to compel local authorities to return seized assets when no legal ground justifies their retention. "The sheriff was found not to have any right to keep the property, but there is no mechanism in Michigan law that can force, to have a state court require the sheriff to give the property back," Ellison explained.
This case highlights broader issues with civil asset forfeiture laws, often criticized for allowing law enforcement agencies to retain property without sufficient legal basis, sometimes resulting in significant personal losses for individuals involved. The outcomes of previous appeals in favor of the Ostipows have yet to result in the restitution of their assets, underscoring systemic challenges within the legal system.
Sheriff Federspiel has expressed respect for the legal process, stating he will allow the Supreme Court proceedings to unfold before making further comments. Meanwhile, Ellison remains committed to pursuing justice for the Ostipow family, emphasizing the potential to curtail what he views as government abuse through a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.
A Michigan township is currently seeking to have a federal court dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of cannabis entrepreneurs and local developers, who allege that town officials have obstructed their efforts to establish a cannabis dispensary. The township argues that the federal court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case.
The lawsuit, initiated by the group Citizens of Lima for Cannabis in March, accuses the township's board of trustees of engaging in a prolonged effort to prevent the opening of a dispensary, despite apparent support from a majority of Lima residents. According to the complaint, this obstruction has resulted in the loss of potential tax revenues estimated between $28,000 and $59,000, based on the financial experiences of other Michigan towns since 2021.
In their motion to dismiss, the township's trustees contend that the lawsuit primarily cites violations of state law, rather than federal law, thus falling outside the purview of federal jurisdiction. They argue that of the three claims presented—violation of a writ of mandamus, civil conspiracy, and a due process violation—only the due process claim tangentially references federal law. This claim involves the trustees' refusal to place an initiative on the 2023 ballot, allegedly rejecting signatures on the grounds that they were collected on the incorrect size of paper. However, the complaint frames this as a violation of the Michigan Constitution, not as a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment or under 42 USC Section 1983, which deals with civil rights violations.
The trustees further state that the lawsuit does not assert diversity of jurisdiction—a condition that could have allowed for federal oversight if the plaintiffs were from different states than the municipality.
Given these arguments, the township asserts that the federal court should dismiss the case as it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. The court's decision on this matter is pending.
In Oakfield Township, Michigan, a local business named Nature's Edge, previously operating as Greenville Hydroponics, has come under scrutiny for allegedly selling nicotine and cannabis products to minors. Following community complaints and subsequent investigations by the Kent County Sheriff's Office (KCSO), the business was raided, resulting in significant seizures.
The Kent Area Narcotics Enforcement Team executed three search warrants at Nature's Edge last month. The raid yielded 3,200 grams of cannabis, 4,100 nicotine vape pens, two handguns, and $39,500 in cash. This operation stemmed from ongoing concerns within the community about the accessibility of restricted products to underage individuals.
The suspicions were initially confirmed in May 2023 when a KCSO decoy, posing as a minor, successfully purchased a nicotine vape pen from the establishment. This incident led to the business receiving a citation for selling to an underage customer.
Further investigations were propelled by reports from a school resource officer who received information about the business allegedly selling cannabis to local students. This tip prompted a more detailed investigation by the narcotics team, culminating in last month's raids.
The Kent County Sheriff's Office has expressed gratitude towards the community for its vigilance and cooperation, emphasizing the importance of community involvement in maintaining public safety. The investigation into the alleged sales of nicotine and cannabis to minors is still active, with the authorities seeking to determine the full extent of the violations and enforce appropriate legal actions.
Helpful Links Categories Recent News