Utica Firefighters Sue Over Medical Cannabis Suspensions in New York

Utica firefighters challenge suspensions tied to urine tests

Two Utica firefighters were suspended after urine tests detected cannabis metabolites, and they have now sued over their right to use medical marijuana.

Ryan Quinn, one of the two, laid out the dispute in an op-ed published Thursday by Marijuana Moment. He said both men were suspended after the tests came back positive for metabolites.

Far more than one fire department is at stake. A positive result that shows only past exposure can end a patient's paycheck, and New York has spent years writing patient protections into law.

Nothing in the op-ed excerpt names the defendants, the court, or the legal theories pleaded. We haven't reviewed the complaint. Everything about the suspensions here comes from Quinn's own account, and CannIntel hasn't independently verified it.

What New York law says, on a strict reading

On a strict reading, two separate New York statutes bear on the case, and neither makes a metabolite result alone a clean basis for discipline.

First up is Cannabis Law §42. By its text, certified medical patients are treated as having a disability under the state Human Rights Law. That framing invites a reasonable-accommodation analysis rather than a simple zero-tolerance rule.

Second comes Labor Law §201-d, as amended by the 2021 Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act. It generally bars employers from acting against workers for lawful off-duty cannabis use, with defined exceptions:

• The employer is barred from permitting the conduct by state or federal statute, regulation, or ordinance.
• The employer would lose a federal contract or federal funding.
• The employee shows specific, articulable symptoms of impairment on the job.

That last exception is the crux. It turns on observable behavior, not a lab value. According to the state Department of Labor's published guidance, a positive test by itself doesn't establish impairment.

Whether a municipal fire department's collective bargaining agreement or any public-safety rule fits one of those exceptions is the open question. The statute's text doesn't resolve it.

Metabolites measure exposure, not impairment

The central factual dispute is that urine tests detect inactive THC metabolites that can linger long after any effect has worn off.

That's the distinction Quinn pressed. He wrote that public safety and fair treatment for medical cannabis patients can both be taken seriously, and that employers should be able to separate evidence of past exposure from evidence of on-duty impairment.

Quinn's argument, paraphrased: the choice isn't between protecting the public and protecting patients, because a well-designed policy can do both by testing for impairment rather than exposure.

Regular patients are the most exposed to this gap, since a person using a certified product nightly can test positive on a morning shift without any functional effect. Not impaired. Still suspended.

Firefighting is an obvious safety-sensitive job, and a department has a real interest in sober crews. But the interest is in impairment. A urinalysis can't measure that.

What this means for employers, patients and the market

An employer that suspends on a metabolite result alone, without documented symptoms, carries litigation risk under New York's current statutory text.

For public employers, the practical to-do list is short:

1. Audit drug-testing policies against Labor Law §201-d's exceptions.
2. Document specific, articulable symptoms before disciplining anyone.
3. Check whether a certified-patient accommodation process exists on paper and in practice.

Patients in safety-sensitive jobs should confirm their certification status and know their employer's written policy before a test, not after. The New York Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) runs the medical program, but it doesn't control municipal personnel rules.

Tax is a different regime. IRC §280E hits operators, not patients, so it has no bearing on this dispute. But the case belongs to the same broader question of how far legalization's protections actually extend. For full background, see the CannIntel topic hub on medical cannabis employment protections.

That gap between statute and workplace practice is hard to defend. New York wrote impairment-based language into its law, and a metabolite test doesn't speak that language.

Next signal to watch: the defendants' first response in court, which will show whether the government argues a statutory exception applies or that the statutes don't reach this employer at all.