Council worker sues employer after bosses stop her driving while taking medical cannabis
A city employee tried to sue his employer after he refused to let him drive while taking medical marijuana.
Lucy McCarthy had been ‘self-medicating’ with medication to relieve her ‘anxiety’, but bosses were concerned about the impact this would have on her work, especially as she was expected to drive.
They were also concerned about how this would affect the job coach’s work with children and vulnerable adults.
He complained of discrimination at an employment tribunal in nearby Leeds, but his claims were rejected when it emerged that ‘no reasonable worker’ could expect the council to allow him to continue working while taking medical cannabis.
Ms McCarthy started working at Kirklees Metropolitan Council in West Yorks in July 2021 as a job coach in the adult social care department.
Ms McCarthy had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, or BPD, in January before she was hired, which ‘impacts her emotional regulation, stress tolerance and general daily functioning’.
In August 2023, he called sick from work when his mental health reached crisis point, with his job coach suffering from suicidal thoughts.
He also reported to his manager that he was using illegal substances.
Ms McCarthy then spoke to a doctor at a private clinic in October 2023, who told her they would ‘likely prescribe medical cannabis in an attempt to treat anxiety and improve mood’.
In November 2023, a doctor recommended he return to work with some reasonable adjustments, and that month he met a boss at the council to discuss the matter.
Ms McCarthy’s ‘use of medicinal cannabis and her role in working with vulnerable adults’ was discussed and it was agreed that she should undergo a further DBS check.
The manager was concerned at the meeting because Ms McCarthy’s ‘mood went from being agitated and upset to being very calm and quiet at other times’.
After this the business coach returned to work but was soon placed on medical suspension due to ‘unknowns around the prescription of medical cannabis and the guidance required on driving’.
It was made clear to Ms McCarthy: “This was not a disciplinary action, but it was expected that information would be gathered from medical experts to support his return.”
He met with bosses in December to discuss cannabis use, and a report was written in January 2024 that said: “Just because a product is prescribed does not mean those risks are different from the risks of illicit cannabis.
“Neurocognitive impairment may develop following ingestion of prescription marijuana, resulting in difficulty expressing and processing information, which can affect attention, dexterity, coordination, and reaction time.
“I cannot objectively measure the extent to which Lucy is affected by the THC content of the cannabis she has been prescribed and therefore cannot comment on whether she can provide a safe service, including driving, while using medical cannabis.”
Discussions continued between Ms. McCarthy and her managers about whether she would be allowed to take marijuana at work.
Finally, in March 2024, it was recommended that he return to work in a phased manner, ‘initially working from a different office location within the same service, not taking on driving duties until clarification and being subject to certain health and risk management measures’.
Ms McCarthy returned to work in April but complained of being unable to do her job and having a ‘low mood’.
He took more sick leave, which meant reduced sick pay.
His employment ended in December 2024 due to ill health but he later took the council to an employment tribunal in Leeds.
Ms McCarthy claimed disability discrimination in the form of breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments, direct discrimination, harassment and discrimination arising from disability.
But Labor Judge David Jones rejected her claims and concluded that ‘no reasonable worker’ could have expected the council to have acted differently.
He said: “When we analyze it objectively we do not think this is negative treatment or harm.
“The uncertainty surrounding the treatment of a worker who continued to take cannabis every day and opted out of further treatment by the NHS posed a risk to the safety and welfare of service users and [Miss McCarthy] self.
“No reasonable employee would consider this decision to be disadvantageous.
“When he started taking the medicine, advice was given about its effect.
“The advice not to return also covered a range of concerns about the lack of medical information and support.
“Also, the purpose of protection [Miss McCarthy’s] health and service user welfare were clearly legitimate.
“This was a duty of care undertaken by the state.” [council]He had to be dismissed as employer and local authority. Refusal to return to work was clearly related to this purpose.
“Until their managers are assured of this [Miss McCarthy] “He was well enough to work and this could be achieved safely, it was inevitable that he would continue on sick leave.”
