Federal Court Upholds Order Requiring Alaska Airlines To Rehire Worker Who Was Fired Over Positive Marijuana Test

A federal judge in Seattle has rejected an effort by Alaska Airlines to overturn an arbitration order reinstating the employment of an aircraft maintenance technician whom the company fired over a positive test for THC.

The worker insisted that he did not knowingly use cannabis and was unaware of how the drug entered his system, speculating he may have accidentally eaten an infused edible at a neighborhood block party.

The employee, Gregory Chappell, was given a random drug test in July 2022. The level of THC metabolites came back above a minimum threshold, and he was immediately fired given the safety-sensitive nature of his lead aircraft maintenance technician (AMT) role.

Chappell denied using marijuana and said it was possible he’d unwittingly consumed an edible at the neighborhood party, where none of the potluck foods were labeled. The airline did not investigate that claim, instead relying on the company’s policy against drug use by safety sensitive employees.

Chappell’s union challenged the firing, and in October of last year, an arbitration panel reversed his termination.

Alaska Airlines promptly filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to undo the arbitration board’s decision, arguing that it was undisputed Chappell failed the marijuana test. The company said the employee’s claim “that he may have unknowingly and accidentally ingested a marijuana edible at a block party simply” amounted to “a fantastical story” and “bizarre speculation,” according to the arbitration panel’s account of the case.

But in a federal court order on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John H. Chun rejected the company’s challenge, ruling that the arbitration board “did not exceed its jurisdiction” in ordering Chappell be rehired.

“To vacate an adjustment board’s award, a court must conclude that the board’s reasoning was ‘wholly without foundation in…fact,'” the court wrote.

“And insofar as Alaska Airlines contests the Board’s reinstatement of Chappell,” the decision continues, “Alaska Airlines cites no authority suggesting that the board’s remedy was unfair, much less warranting judicial intrusion in an area over which the Board has special expertise.”

The judge further awarded the union attorneys fees and costs for the case, though it remanded the matter to the arbitration board to determine how to handle backpay and benefits for the past year.

“Because the Board did not account for the possibility that Alaska Airlines’ noncompliance with the award would delay Chappell’s reinstatement,” the order says, “the Court remands to the Board the issue whether Chappell should be awarded back pay and benefits from the date of the arbitration award.”

Reached this week, attorney Lee Seham, who represented Chappell’s union in the case, said the matter underscores the state–federal conflict over the legality of cannabis and recognizes that marijuana is more prevalent in the era of state-level legalization.

“To my mind, this case is a reflection of the tension between federal and state law,” he told Marijuana Moment. “Marijuana is everywhere. And it can be in eaten at a potluck supper, innocently, and without physiological impact, and thereafter destroy a career.”

“The arbitration decision, and the federal court case enforcing that decision, recognize a need to protect the innocent victims of this tension,” he added.

Seham told Marijuana Moment a year ago that it was “extremely uncommon” for companies to challenge arbitration awards in federal court, noting that such decisions are typically considered final and binding.

He said the federal court’s upholding of that decision reaffirms that “we’re living in a different age” in which “marijuana is ubiquitous.”

“You didn’t even investigate this man’s account or representation that it must have been accidental,” he said of Alaska’s handling of the incident.

“Things have changed so radically in the last 10 years,” he added, “and arbitrators are allowed to look at those facts and say, ‘When I decide what’s just, I get to look at these things.'”

Alaska Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the court ruling, nor did the company’s lawyer in the matter.

Seham made similar arguments about the changing legal landscape around marijuana in an op-ed published in Marijuana Moment last November:

“Irrespective of one’s thoughts on marijuana legalization, we have reached a point of no return both in terms of culture and economics. More than 50 percent of Americans live in jurisdictions where recreational marijuana is legal, and 74 percent have access to medical cannabis. Revenue of the U.S. cannabis market will exceed $30 billion in 2023 and will increase at double-digit rates for the foreseeable future. State treasuries hunger for the tax revenue.

“Given its legality, given its ubiquity, it is time we stop gratuitously destroying careers based on marijuana tests that say nothing about impairment. The problem is particularly acute in the transportation industry, where employers are compelled by federal law to randomly test employees and remove them from their safety sensitive positions based on positive tests. Frequently, that removal is followed by termination by the employer and license action by the regulating agency.”

The evolving legal landscape around cannabis in the United States has complicated drug testing standards, especially in federally regulated sectors, and has encouraged employers and policymakers alike to reconsider when and how people are screened for marijuana.

In August, Marijuana Moment published a document behind a decision by Home Depot, one of the largest employers in the United States, to remove cannabis from screening panels entirely and stop pre-employment drug testing of most of its workers.

In 2021, corporate behemoth Amazon announced that it would stop testing many of its workers for marijuana—and also begin lobbying the federal government for cannabis legalization.

A number of states have also passed legislation that limits or prevents drug testing of employees for marijuana. Earlier this year, for example, new worker protections took effect in both California and Washington State.

In California, employers are now prohibited from asking job applicants about past cannabis use, and most are barred from penalizing employees over lawful use of marijuana outside of the job. The Washington State law, meanwhile, protects workers from facing employment discrimination during the hiring process over their lawful use of cannabis. It does not protect current workers from discipline or firing for out-of-work use, however.

In New Jersey, the state’s policy against drug testing public employees has spiraled into lawsuits over whether police in Jersey City can be fired for testing positive for THC. The state’s attorney general has advised departments not to test officers for off-duty cannabis use following legalization, but Jersey City’s mayor has publicly defied that policy—a move officers claim is motivated by the mayor’s political ambitions.

Cannabis-related employment policies have been a major topic across the country amid the marijuana legalization movement.

As marijuana legalization began to take effect in Ohio last year, for example, Cleveland Mayor Justin M. Bibb (D) announced that the city has “modernized” its drug testing policies for applicants for city jobs, eliminating “antiquated language around pre-employment marijuana testing that has previously hindered hiring efforts.”

A Washington, D.C. law went into effect last July that bans most private workplaces from firing or otherwise punishing employees for marijuana use during non-work hours.

Michigan officials also approved changes to the state’s employment policy last year, making it so applicants for most government jobs will no longer be subject to pre-employment drug testing for marijuana.

New York also provides broader employment protections for adults who legally use cannabis during off-hours and away from work.

A number of North American sports leagues have also revised their stances on cannabis in recent years. Last year, for example, the National Basketball Association (NBA) removed marijuana from its banned substances list and allowed players to invest in cannabis companies. The league had reportedly already stopped testing players for cannabis use for years at that point.

Major League Baseball (MLB), meanwhile, took marijuana off its banned substances list in 2019 and some baseball teams—including the Chicago Cubs and Kansas City Royals—have since partnered with CBD companies. In 2022, MLB itself signed a CBD company to serve as the league’s first-ever cannabis sponsor.

While the National Football League (NFL) and its players union agreed to end the practice of suspending players over marijuana or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement in 2020, it has continued to fine players over positive THC tests. For the first through third positive test, the fine is half a week’s salary; a fourth and each subsequent positive test is punishable by a fine equal to three week’s salary.

Other sports leagues and governing bodies have also adopted revised marijuana policies as the state-level cannabis legalization movement continues to spread.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), for example, recently voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players, a change that took effect in June.

The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) announced in December that it was formally removing marijuana from its newly modified banned substances list for athletes, also building on an earlier reform.

However, ahead of a UFC event in February, a California athletics commission said they could still face penalties under state rules for testing positive for THC over a certain limit, as the state body’s policy is based around World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidance.

Nevada sports regulators voted last year to send a proposed regulatory amendment to the governor that would protect athletes from being penalized over using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

While advocates have welcomed these changes, there’s been criticism of WADA over its ongoing cannabis ban. Members of a panel within the agency said in an opinion piece last August that marijuana use by athletes violates the “spirit of sport,” making them unfit role models whose potential impairment could put others at risk.

Advocates strongly urged WADA to enact a reform after U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson was suspended from participating in Olympics events due to a positive THC test in 2021.

Following that suspension, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said that the international rules on marijuana “must change,” the White House and President Joe Biden himself signaled that it was time for new policies and congressional lawmakers amplified that message.

During this year’s Olympics in Paris, the head of USADA blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events.

Read the court order in Alaska Airlines v. Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association Local 14 below:

Doctors Group Says Opioid Settlement Funds Should Be Used To Support Safe Consumption Sites For Illegal Drugs