Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. V. Bureau of Labor and Industries

EMERALD STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. V. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES

FACTS: The Bureau of Labor and Industries (hereafter “BOLI” or “Respondent”) brought forth a formal complaint against Emerald Steel Fabricators, INC (hereafter “Emerald” or “Petitioners”) on behalf of an employee complaint. The Respondent hired the employee as a temporary drill press operator. When respondent was considering hiring the employee as a full time position, a mandatory drug test was required. It was at this time that the employee informed the respondent that he has been and will continue to use medicinal marijuana to treat his anxiety, panic attacks, nausea, vomiting and sever stomach cramps. The employee also provided his registry identification card. The employee was subsequently discharged from his position. BOLI formally charged Emerald of violating ORS 659A.112(2)(c) and (g) which stipulates that Emerald had discharged employee because of his disability. Furthermore BOLI also charged Emerald with failing to reasonably accommodate employee’s disability in violation of ORS 659a.112(2)(e) and (f). The administrative law judge (hereafter “ALJ”) ruled that the discharge of employee did not violate ORS 659A.112(2)(c) and (g). However, ALJ found the Emerald had failed to reasonably accommodate employee’s disability and thus violated ORS 659A.112(2)(e) and (f). Respondent sought review of the commissioner’s order in the Court of Appeals, who affirmed on procedural grounds.

ISSUE: Preemption argument raises is whether federal law preempts ORS475.306(1) to the extent that it authorizes the use of medical marijuana.

OUTCOME: Both the commissioner’s order and the Court of Appeals decision affirming that order on procedural grounds must be reversed.

REASONING: To the extent that ORS 475.306(1) affirmatively authorizes the use of medical marijuana, federal law preempts that subsection, leaving it “without effect.” See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (S Ct 1992) (“[S]ince our decision in...