AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff was terminated from employment due to the use of medical cannabis, which was authorized under the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The Plaintiff then filed a complaint alleging a violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), claiming that the termination constituted unlawful discrimination based on a serious medical condition or handicap.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The Plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in concluding the use of medical cannabis is illegal under federal law and contended that medical cannabis should be considered a reasonable accommodation under the NMHRA, emphasizing the public policy articulated by the Legislature in decriminalizing cannabis use under the CUA.
• Defendants-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's NMHRA claim on the basis that adverse employment action for the use of cannabis was not unlawful discrimination.
• Whether medical cannabis use, authorized by the CUA, should be considered a reasonable accommodation under the NMHRA.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to protection under the NMHRA.

Reasons

• B. Zamora, J., with Jennifer L. Attrep, J., and Megan P. Duffy, J., concurring, provided the following reasons:
  The NMHRA prohibits employment discrimination based on a serious medical condition unless it involves a bona fide occupational qualification or is prohibited by other statutes. The Court found that the district court correctly dismissed the Plaintiff's NMHRA claims because the use of cannabis, being federally illegal, cannot be considered a necessary reasonable accommodation under the NMHRA (paras 2-3).
  The Court declined to address the Plaintiff's argument regarding the federal legality of medical cannabis use, as this issue was not preserved at the district court level. The Plaintiff had conceded the use of medical cannabis as illegal under federal law for the purposes of his NMHRA claim in the lower court (para 4).
  The Court also considered the legislative intent behind the CUA, noting that the 2019 amendment to the CUA, which added employment protections for medical cannabis users, indicated a significant change in the law. Since the CUA in effect at the time of the Plaintiff's lawsuit did not contain language providing employment protections for cannabis users, the Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the CUA to provide such protections prior to the 2019 amendment (paras 5-7).