In a landmark ruling, a Florida state court has determined that the Florida Constitution mandates public employers to accommodate employees' off-duty use of medical marijuana, provided it does not involve on-site consumption or impairment at work. The case, Giambrone v. Hillsborough County, involves an emergency medical technician (EMT) who was suspended after testing positive for marijuana, despite holding a valid state-issued medical marijuana card for treating conditions like anxiety, PTSD, and insomnia. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employee, emphasizing that off-site use must be accommodated under state law, even amid federal prohibitions on marijuana. This decision highlights the growing tension between state medical marijuana protections and federal drug policies, potentially influencing how employers handle drug testing and accommodations. As of October 2025, the ruling is under appeal in Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, with no final resolution yet, leaving employers in a state of uncertainty.
Background
Angelo Giambrone served as an EMT for Hillsborough County's fire department. During a routine random drug screening, he tested positive for marijuana and subsequently presented his valid medical marijuana card, explaining its use for managing anxiety, PTSD, and insomnia outside of work hours. The county placed him on unpaid administrative leave, citing its drug-free workplace policy and federal law prohibiting marijuana. There was no evidence of on-the-job use, possession, impairment, or performance issues. The county also reported him to the state EMT licensing board, which later dropped its investigation upon confirming his cardholder status. Giambrone sued, alleging disability discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), wrongful termination, and breach of his collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which permitted reporting prescriptions authorized under federal or state law after a positive test. The county defended by arguing that federal illegality trumped state accommodations.
The Details
Circuit Court Judge Melissa M. Polo ruled in Giambrone's favor on summary judgment, stating that the Florida Constitution requires accommodation for off-site medical marijuana use. She rejected the county's federal law defense, noting Giambrone's state-controlled EMT license and distinguishing the case from Ortiz v. Department of Corrections, where federal firearm laws conflicted with accommodations for a correctional officer. The CBA's language further supported Giambrone, as it explicitly allowed state-authorized medications. Importantly, the ruling clarifies no obligation exists for on-site use or allowing impairment at work. The county appealed the decision to the Second District Court of Appeal, where it remains pending as of mid-2025, with potential statewide implications for employer policies.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
Florida's medical marijuana program stems from Amendment 2, passed by voters in 2016 and enshrined in Article X, Section 29 of the Florida Constitution. This provision legalizes medical marijuana for qualifying patients but explicitly states no requirement for employers to accommodate "on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of employment." Implementing statutes, such as Florida Statutes Section 381.986, prohibit workplace use without employer permission and allow drug-free policies, but courts have interpreted the constitution to imply protections for off-duty use as a reasonable accommodation under the FCRA, which mirrors the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in requiring interactive processes for disabilities. Federally, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), creating conflicts—no ADA accommodations are required for its use. However, state courts like in Giambrone prioritize Florida's constitution for state-licensed roles. Employers must balance this with federal obligations, especially in safety-sensitive positions, and may rely on reasonable suspicion testing rather than blanket random screens.
Key Players and Political Forces
Key players in the Giambrone case include plaintiff Angelo Giambrone, defendant Hillsborough County, and presiding Judge Melissa M. Polo, whose opinion emphasized state sovereignty over federal drug laws in non-conflicting scenarios. The county's legal team has driven the appeal, arguing for federal preemption. Broader political forces involve pro-cannabis advocacy groups like the Florida Cannabis Action Network (FLCAN), which pushes for patient protections, and Democratic lawmakers such as State Sen. Tina Polsky, who introduced SB 136 in 2025 to prohibit adverse actions against public employees using medical marijuana off-duty. Conservative forces, including Republican-led efforts in the Florida Legislature and Department of Health, focus on strict regulation of marijuana products, with figures like certain House members criticizing lax enforcement on child-targeted items. Labor unions, via CBAs like Giambrone's, also play a role in negotiating drug policy language. Nationally, the EEOC's 2025 lawsuit against a marijuana company for failing to accommodate underscores federal scrutiny on disability issues in the industry.
Potential Short- and Long-Term Implications
In the short term, Florida employers—especially public entities—may need to revise drug testing policies, shifting from automatic suspensions for positive tests to interactive accommodation processes for medical marijuana cardholders. This could reduce litigation risks under the FCRA but increase administrative burdens, such as training supervisors on impairment detection and reasonable suspicion testing. Private employers might face similar pressures if the appeal upholds the ruling, potentially leading to more lawsuits from employees in non-safety-sensitive roles. Long-term, a affirmed decision could pave the way for broader employment protections, influencing future legislation like SB 136 or even recreational marijuana reforms (following Amendment 3's 2024 failure). It may encourage federal rescheduling of marijuana, easing conflicts, but could complicate safety in high-risk industries like transportation or healthcare. Overall, it signals a trend toward normalizing medical marijuana in workplaces, prompting employers to update CBAs and policies proactively.
Forward-Looking Conclusion
As the appeal in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County progresses, Florida employers should monitor developments closely and consult legal experts to navigate the evolving landscape of medical marijuana accommodations. With ongoing legislative efforts like SB 136 and potential federal shifts, the state may see expanded protections for off-duty use, balancing employee rights with workplace safety. Ultimately, this case underscores the need for flexible, evidence-based policies that prioritize performance over punitive drug testing, fostering a more inclusive environment for medical marijuana users while upholding federal compliance where necessary.
