Within the Act, the State specifically indicates that while employers are prohibited from inquiring into an individual's wage and salary history, employers are permitted to engage in discussions regarding an applicant's expectations pertaining to wage or salary, benefits, and other compensation. Effective January 1, 2022, the list of compensation discussion items will also include "unvested equity or deferred compensation that the applicant would forfeit or have canceled by virtue of the applicant's resignation from the applicant's current employer."

The MMA prohibits employers from "discharg[ing], threaten[ing], refus[ing] to hire or otherwise discriminat[ing] against an employee . . . solely on the basis of such an employee's status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana." The MMA does not explicitly state, however, that employees may sue their employers for violations of the MMA.

In the Palmiter case, an employee working as a medical assistant filed a lawsuit against her employer after she was fired for testing positive for marijuana on an employer-directed drug test. The employee asserted multiple claims, including a claim under the MMA and a claim for common law wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The employer responded, asserting there was no private right of action under the MMA and no clear public policy underlying the employee's claims.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's decision, holding there is an implied private right of action for employees who claim that they were discriminated against or terminated for use of medical marijuana in violation of the MMA. The court further held that employees can also assert claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy for termination for off-premises medical marijuana use under the MMA.

Here, the employer's policy requires a pre-employment drug screen for all prospective employees. The employer granted the plaintiff's request to postpone the drug screen until after he began working for the company. The plaintiff then indicated on an internal personnel form that he was not "disabled," signed a drug screen consent form and disclosed, for the first time, that he had been prescribed marijuana to treat chronic back pain. The plaintiff did not supply the employer any substantiating details or documentation regarding his condition or any potential job performance limitations.

The plaintiff forwarded his medical marijuana card to the HR department, which he obtained after being informed of the impending drug test. He subsequently submitted to the test (which returned a positive result for marijuana) and was then terminated based on that outcome. The plaintiff responded by filing a retaliation and disability discrimination lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") in addition to claims for wrongful termination, failure to accommodate a disability and failure to engage in the interactive process.

In addition to the permitted use of pre-employment drug testing, the Court further held that allegations of pain, do not qualify as a disability and "an employer does not have to accept an employee's subjective belief that he is disabled." Since sufficient detail or documentation was never provided to the employer, the Plaintiff failed to establish he suffered from a disability.

• That Defendants arranged for undocumented aliens to be smuggled into the United States and supplied them to restaurants the defendants had a financial interest in.
• That Members and associates of the criminal enterprise shielded unauthorized employees from detection by immigration authorities by eliminating records of their employment, paying them by personal check and in cash, failing to maintain complete and accurate Forms I-9 and required wage and hour reports for these employees, assisting them with the acquisition of false identification documents (such as Social Security numbers and alien resident documents), and making false statements to immigration authorities and law enforcement officials.
• That the first investigatory tactic that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) used was conducting Form I-9 audits on the restaurants to determine if any unauthorized aliens were working there; after unauthorized aliens were identified a subsequent audit was conducted to determine if those unauthorized aliens had been terminated.
• That one defendant was charged with falsely certifying that three individuals were eligible to work when the defendant knew they were not eligible for work.

The charges are accusations and not evidence of guilt. Evidence must be presented to a federal trial jury in order to determine guilt or innocence.