A council worker tried to sue her employer after it would not let her drive while taking medical cannabis.
Lucy McCarthy had been ‘self-medicating’ with the drug to help her ‘anxiety’, but bosses were concerned about the effects it could have on her work – especially as she was expected to drive.
They were also concerned how it might affect the job coach’s work with children and vulnerable adults.
She complained that she had been discriminated against at an employment tribunal in nearby Leeds, but her claims were dismissed when it was found that ‘no reasonable worker’ would expect the council to allow her to continue working while taking medical cannabis.
Miss McCarthy started working for Kirklees Metropolitan Council in West Yorks in July 2021 as a job coach in the department of adult social care.
The January before she was hired, Miss McCarthy had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, or BPD, which ‘affected her emotional regulation, stress tolerance and overall day to day functioning’.
In August 2023, she went off sick from work when her mental health reached a crisis point, with the job coach suffering from suicidal thoughts.
She also informed her manager that she had been taking illegal substances.
Miss McCarthy subsequently spoke to a doctor at a private clinic in October 2023 who told her they ‘would likely prescribe medical cannabis… for the purpose of treating anxiety and improvement in mood’.
In November 2023 a physician recommended that she return to work with some reasonable adjustments and that month she met with a boss at the council to discuss it.
They discussed Miss McCarthy’s ‘use of medical cannabis and her role working with vulnerable adults’ and it was agreed she should undertake an advanced DBS check.
The manager was concerned at the meeting because of Miss McCarthy’s ‘mood changes from being agitated and upset and at other times very calm and quiet’.
After that the job coach returned to work but was shortly put on a medical suspension because of ‘the unknowns around the prescription of medical cannabis and guidance needed around driving’.
It was made clear to Miss McCarthy that: “It was not disciplinary action but was pending the gathering of information from medical professionals in order to support her return.”
She met with bosses in December to discuss her cannabis use and a report was written in January 2024 that said: “The fact a product is prescribed does not imply these risks are different to those of illicit cannabis.
“Neurocognitive impairment can develop following absorption of prescribed cannabis and this could result in difficulty articulating and processing information which can affect attention, manual dexterity, coordination and reaction time.
“I am unable to objectively measure the extent to which Lucy is affected by the THC content of the cannabis she is being prescribed, and therefore am unable to comment on whether or not she can provide a safe service, including driving, while using medical cannabis.”
Negotiations continued between Miss McCarthy and her managers about whether or not she should be allowed to take cannabis at work.
Eventually in March 2024 it was proposed that she have a phased return to work, would ‘initially work from a different office location within the same service, would not undertake driving duties pending clarification, and would be subject to certain wellbeing and risk-management measures’.
Miss McCarthy returned to work in April, but complained that she could not do her job and that she was suffering from a ‘low mood’.
She took more time off sick which meant her sick pay ended up being reduced.
Her employment ended in December 2024 because of her health – but she then took the council to an employment tribunal in Leeds.
Miss McCarthy claimed disability discrimination in the form of a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, direct discrimination, harassment and discrimination arising from disability.
But Employment Judge David Jones dismissed her claims and concluded that ‘no reasonable worker’ would have expected the council to have acted differently.
He said: “We do not consider, objectively analysed, this was unfavourable treatment or a detriment.
“The uncertainty surrounding the treatment of an employee who… continued to take cannabis daily and who had disengaged from further treatment by the NHS posed risks to the safety and welfare of service users and [Miss McCarthy] herself.
“No reasonable worker would regard that decision as disadvantageous.
“Advice was suggested about its impact when she did start to take it.
“The advice not to return embraced several concerns about the lack of medical information and support.
“Moreover the aim of safeguarding [Miss McCarthy’s] health and service-users’ welfare was plainly a legitimate one.
“It was a duty of care held by the [council], as employer and local authority, and one it had to discharge. Not agreeing to a return to work was clearly relevant to that aim.
“Until her managers could be reassured that [Miss McCarthy] was well enough to work and that could be safely achieved, continuing her sick leave was unavoidable.”
