Skip to main content

The clash between disability law, medical marijuana law and criminal law--what gives?

In a case of first impression the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that a recipient of a legal medical card to use marijuana for medical purposes was not entitle to a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act and that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act was preempted by the Controlled Substance Act.
The Plaintiff suffered from Multiple Sclerosis and received social security supplemental income. The Plaintiff’s doctor prescribed medical marijuana to help with her symptoms. The state of Michigan provided Plaintiff with a medical marijuana card pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act. 

Plaintiff began smoking marijuana in her apartment. The landlord filed for eviction due to her smoking. Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act. The complex is  project-based, Section 8, federally assisted and the lease states that Defendant “may terminate the agreement for various reasons, including: drug-related criminal activity engaged in on or near the premises by any Resident, household member, or guest, or any such activity engaged in on the premises by any other person under the Resident’s control; “if the landlord determines that the Resident, any member of the Resident’s household, a guest or another person under the Resident’s control has engaged in the criminal activity, regardless of whether the Resident, any member of the Resident’s household, a guest or another person under the Resident’s control has been arrested or convicted for such activity.” Forest City Residential Management v. Lashawn Beasley and Eugene Kenyon, Case No. 13-14547 (E.D. Mich. 2014)
For the full opinion see: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2:2013cv14547/285993/37/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pinklining"? Innovative way to deny women home loans

From redlining to  “pinklining,” a term most people have probably never heard, is hurting women and especially women of color.  The term comes from the 1970's term   redlining . T he term used by governments, agencies, banks and other lenders to deny people of color access to mortgages and credit. Those in charge of public policy and lending practices would draw a redline around certain neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities and deny them financing and other forms of credit if they lived within those lines. Now, more specifically lenders are using the term "pinklining" ala redlining to identify neighborhoods and deny woman of color the chance to buy homes. Is There a Gender Gap in Home Equity Loans? (investopedia.com)
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: March 15-26

NFHA President Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee (Reading the full testimony is strongly recommended for anyone interested Fair Housing issues.) On March 11, Shanna Smith of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NHFA) testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommitte on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, with a presentation titled "Protecting the American Dream: A Look at the Fair Housing Act." The testimony emphasizes that in spite of our efforts, the nation still falls "dramatically short of reaching the actual goals of the Fair Housing Act" which is designed to "eliminate housing discrimination and to promote residential integration." "While people are working together in greater numbers than ever before--many go home each night to racially segregated neighborhoods." Shanna "explores the nature and extent of housing discrimination as it is manifested today, how enforcement action is moving ...
Post a Comment
Read more

SunTrust $21Million Settlement with DOJ

This past Thursday, Businessweek covered a massive settlement in a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in SunTrust’s lending practices. The suit, filed by the US DOJ, was filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, VA, alleging more than 20,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers were charged more than similarly-situated and qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers, between 2005 and 2009. The suit alleged that minority borrowers in 75 geographic markets from Virginia Beach, VA to San Francisco, CA, paid more in loan fees, or were charged higher interest rates based solely on race or national origin. A consent order filed with the complaint says SunTrust denies any wrongdoing, but agreed to the settlement. "SunTrust strongly believes in the principles of fair lending," company spokesman Mike McCoy in Atlanta said. "We are pleased to have reached a settlement and put this matter behind us." Settlements like this come as a surprise, considering the...
6 comments
Read more