While medical marijuana possession and use was legalized by voters in November 2010, one local woman said she was fired earlier this year simply for being a cardholder.

Now she is suing Verde Valley Community Hospice, a company located in Old Town Cottonwood, for wrongful termination and defamation.

“This might be one of the first employment discrimination cases in the state in regards to the medical marijuana act,” said Shapiro’s lawyer, David Weissman.

Aside from wrongful termination, Shapiro alleges in her Nov. 15 lawsuit that William Hayes, a partner with the for-profit hospice company, submitted “false and defamatory information” to the Arizona Board of Nursing in retaliation for Shapiro “asserting her legal rights under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.”

Following voter approval of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act in 2010, employment discrimination of medical marijuana users is now expressly prohibited under Arizona Revised Statute §36-2813.

Under the act’s provisions, no employer may discriminate against a person by hiring, firing or imposing terms or conditions of employment or otherwise penalizing an employee based on their status as a cardholder.

Nor can a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana be grounds for termination or penalization, unless the person used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises during work hours.

“Shapiro never used, possessed or was under the influence of marijuana while on VVCH’s premises and/or during her work at VVCH,” the lawsuit states.

The only exception to the act’s antidiscrimination provision is if an employer would lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law or regulation. Weissman said Verde Valley Community Hospice has not made this claim.

Verde Valley Community Hospice hired Shapiro as a nurse in July and she began work on Aug. 3.

On Aug. 18, during her orientation and training, the lawsuit states Nurse Manager Donna Gould told Shapiro she would have to undergo a standard “pre-employment drug screen.” Shapiro said she immediately told Gould she was a registered Arizona medical marijuana cardholder.

Shapiro has been an Arizona cardholder since June. She had been a cardholder in Colorado for two years before moving to Arizona about a year ago.

Shapiro consented to the drug test at a laboratory later on Aug. 18.

On Aug. 19, Shapiro’s lawsuit states Gould told her Verde Valley Community Hospice’s insurance carrier considered her a liability because she was a medical marijuana cardholder. She was fired and asked to turn in her property and paperwork.

Shapiro said Gould told her the liability issue was about insurance covering her while driving. Shapiro has her own personal insurance in case of a car accident. Shapiro said Verde Valley Community Hospice nurses take their own vehicles to clients’ homes and do not drive clients around.

Shapiro hired Weissman, an employment discrimination attorney from Scottsdale who contacted Verde Valley Community Hospice on Sept. 2.

“We told them they were in violation of the medical marijuana act,” Weissman stated. He said he offered to settle the matter quickly and quietly.

William Hayes, a partner with Verde Valley Community Hospice, contacted Weissman on Sept. 9 and rejected the offer.

Some 10 days later, on Sept. 19, Hayes filed a complaint against Shapiro with the Arizona State Board of Nursing. According to the lawsuit, Hayes’ complaint states an unnamed Verde Valley Community Hospice employee smelled marijuana on Shapiro and she was asked to submit to a “for cause” drug test back on Aug. 18.

Shapiro stated Verde Valley Community Hospice never informed her an employee reported smelling the odor of marijuana. Hayes’ Sept. 18 complaint to the Board of Nursing was the first she heard of any such complaint.

Shapiro said she both smokes and ingests edible medical marijuana but she said,“I really only use it at night.” The possibility of marijuana odor remaining detectable the next day is “just highly unlikely.”

She also alleges in her lawsuit the drug test in question was a “pre-employment drug screening” not “for cause.” “I think a case like this is important because employers are unsure of how to proceed,” Weissman said. “It brings public attention to the law, so employers can review their policies.”

“It really is important for employers to review their policies — some might have been legal before but now might be discrimination,” he said.

Neither Gould nor Hayes returned multiple requests for comment by press time.