Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
`FORT SMITH DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO. 2:21-cv-____
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DEFENDANTS
`
`
`ERICA TAYLOR,
`Individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated
`
`V.
`
`COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., and
`REVENUE CYCLE SERVICE CENTER, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Comes now the Plaintiff, Erica Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, by and through her attorney, Chris W. Burks of WH Law, PLLC, and for original cause of
`
`action against the Defendants Community Health Systems, Inc., and Revenue Cycle Service
`
`Center, LLC, states:
`
`I.
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiff Erica Taylor worked in a call-center, using phones and software to help
`
`1.
`
`billing processes. It was an office job without manual labor or travel, as a safe as any office job
`
`can be. Yet she was fired for being a medical marijuana patient.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff Taylor was denied employment in a non-safety sensitive
`
`position solely because of her medical marijuana use away from work, in direct contravention of
`
`Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 3
`
`3.
`
`The voters of Arkansas overwhelmingly passed Amendment 98 to their
`
`Constitution, which requires that “an employer shall not discriminate against” an
`
`“employee…based upon the employee’s status as a qualifying [medical marijuana] patient.”
`
`4.
`
`Under Amendment 98, employers can have a “drug testing program,” can decline
`
`to hire applicants or can fire employees based on use of drugs “on premises,” and can decline to
`
`hire medical marijuana patients or fir employees who fail a drug screen for drugs other than
`
`marijuana. Employers can also decline to hire or fire a medical marijuana patient fin a “safety-
`
`sensitive position.”
`
`5.
`
`However, employers cannot decline to hire or fire a medical marijuana patient for a
`
`non safety-sensitive position because of a positive marijuana test away from work.
`
`Yet that is exactly what Defendant did to Plaintiff.
`
`II.
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`Plaintiff is an individual resident of Sebastian County, Arkansas.
`
`The incidents giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Sebastian County,
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Arkansas.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Community Health Systems, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation, that is
`
`headquartered at 4000 Meridian Boulevard, Franklin, TN 37067, and able to be served by its
`
`Registered Agent the Corporation Service Company, 300 S. Spring St., Suite 900, Little Rock, AR
`
`72201.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Revenue Cycle Service Center, LLC is a foreign limited liability
`
`company, that is headquartered at 4000 Meridian Boulevard, Franklin, TN 37067, and able to be
`
`served by its Registered Agent the Corporation Service Company, 300 S. Spring St., Suite 900,
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 4
`
`Little Rock, AR 72201.
`
`11.
`
`This is a cause of action against Defendant for violations of Amendment 98 to the
`
`Arkansas Constitution and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (hereafter called “ACRA”) A.C.A. §§
`
`16-123-107(a)(1) and -105.
`
`12.
`
` This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action under A.C.A. §16-123-105,
`
`and venue properly lies in this county under the provisions of A.C.A. §16-60-108 and A.C.A. §16-
`
`60-116.
`
`III.
`Factual Allegations
`
`Plaintiff Erica Taylor worked well in a call center billing position for Defendants in
`
`13.
`
`Fort Smith, with no discipline requiring suspension or termination.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`She worked for over two years in the position.
`
`The Vendor Specialist position was not listed as safety-sensitive in writing on the
`
`application for the position, nor in the job description for the position.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Nothing Erica Taylor did for her job was safety-sensitive.
`
`Erica Taylor was subject to the Defendants random drug testing policy.
`
`Defendants are a part of the same single healthcare conglomerate, CHS, and thus
`
`share a centralized human resource policy regarding random drug testing and medical marijuana,
`
`including but not limited to having the same in-house employment law department and counsel in
`
`based in its headquarters in Franklin, TN. Specifically, Community Health Systems, Inc. is the
`
`parent to the subsidiary Revenue Cycle Service Center, LLC, and Defendants jointly employed
`
`Plaintiff and set the policy at issue in this matter out of its common Franklin, TN headquarters.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Erica Taylor had told Defendants that she was a medical marijuana patient
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 5
`
`and that she would not pass a drug screen for use of medical marijuana outside of work.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Taylor proceeded with the drug screen and only tested positive for
`
`marijuana, notifying Defendants that she only failed for marijuana on July 01, 2020.
`
`21.
`
`Despite their knowledge that Plaintiff Taylor only tested positive for marijuana, and
`
`that she was in a non-safety sensitive position, she was subsequently fired from her position as a
`
`vendor specialist for that reason.
`
`22. Henderson was told that Defendant has a zero-tolerance policy for any positive drug
`
`test, and was subsequently fired from her position as a vendor specialist.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiffs Taylor was thus denied employment for her status as qualifying medical
`
`marijuana patient.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Taylor was unable to find similarly-paid employment for some time
`
`afterwards.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants were at all relevant times an employer within the meaning of the ACRA
`
`and Arkansas Constitution.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants intentionally did not proceed with Plaintiffs’ employment because of
`
`her medical marijuana patient status despite their knowledge of the law prohibiting such
`
`discrimination and knowledge of Plaintiffs’ status as qualifying patients.
`
`26. Merely because Defendants have a drug-testing policy and drug-free workplace
`
`does not mean Defendants can decline to hire or fire a medical marijuana patient for a non safety-
`
`senstive position because of a positive marijuana test away from work.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 6
`
`IV.
`First claim for relief:
`Individual violations of Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`27.
`
`fully set forth in this section.
`
`28. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her rights, privileges, and immunities as set forth
`
`in Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution and engaged in unlawful employment practices in
`
`violation of Ark. Code Ann. § § 16-123-101, et seq.
`
`29.
`
`Specifically, Defendants discriminated against the employee Plaintiff Taylor
`
`because of her status as qualifying medical marijuana patient.
`
`30.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the position
`
`to which she was hired.
`
`31.
`
`However, Plaintiff Taylor was denied employment because of her status as a
`
`qualifying medial marijuana patient.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff did not possess, smoke, ingest, or otherwise engage in the use of marijuana
`
`while on the premises of the employer or during the hours of employment. Nor was Plaintiff
`
`under the influence of marijuana while on the premises of the employer or during the hours of
`
`employment.
`
`33.
`
` Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution makes clear that merely because
`
`Defendants have a drug-testing policy and drug-free workplace does not mean Defendants can fire
`
`or decline to hire a medical marijuana patient for a non safety-senstive position because of a positive
`
`marijuana test away from work.
`
`34.
`
`The exact text of the relevant portion of Section 3 of Amendment 98 reads that:
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 7
`
`hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize
`an applicant or employee, based upon the applicant's or employee's past or present
`status as a qualifying patient or designated caregiver.
`
`and an employer is not prohibited from, any of the following actions:
`
`(f)(3)(A) An employer shall not discriminate against an applicant or employee in
` (B) A cause of action shall not be established against an employer based upon,
` (i) Establishing and implementing a substance abuse or drug-free workplace
` (ii) Acting on the employer's good faith belief that a qualifying patient:
`(a) Possessed, smoked, ingested, or otherwise engaged in the use of
`(b) Was under the influence of marijuana while on the premises of the
` (iii) Acting to exclude a qualifying patient from being employed in or
`
`policy that may include a drug testing program that complies with state or
`federal law and taking action with respect to an applicant or employee under
`the policy;
`
`marijuana while on the premises of the employer or during the hours
`of employment;  or
`
`employer during the hours of employment, provided that a positive
`test result for marijuana cannot provide the sole basis for the
`employer's good faith belief;  or
`
`performing a safety sensitive position based on the employer's good faith
`belief that the qualifying patient was engaged in the current use of marijuana.
`
`35.
`
`Section (f)(3)(B)(i) does allow a drug-free workplace policy and drug testing, but as
`
`sections (3)BD)(ii) and (iii) explain, that drug testing and drug-free workplace policy only applies
`
`to on premises marijuana influence by qualified patients, and employers can exclude current
`
`medical marijuana users only from designated safety sensitive positions.
`
`36.
`
`The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently made clear that law “should be
`
`construed so that no word is void, superfluous, or insignificant, and meaning and effect must be
`
`given to every word contained therein, if possible, see Locke v. Cook, 245 Ark. 787, 434 S.W.2d 598
`
`(1968)” AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 67 Ark.
`
`App. 177, 189 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999).
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 8
`
`37.
`
`To read that Amendment 98 allows a qualify medical marijuana patient to be fired
`
`or excluded from employment for a positive marijuana drug test merely because an employer has
`
`a drug testing and drug free workplace policy under Section(f)(3)(B)(i) completely renders
`
`Sections (3)(a), and (3)(B)(ii)-(iii) meaningless.
`
`38.
`
`Instead, the general Section(3)(B)(i) must be read in harmony with the more
`
`specific Sections (3)(B)(ii) and (iii) to delineate the exception to the protections of Section (3)(a).
`
`39.
`
`Further, section 3(C)(vi)’s protection for “refusing to hire an applicant” under
`
`(f)(3) is not a categorical exception to the plain meaning of (f)(3)(A) that “an employer shall not
`
`discriminate against an applicant…,” nor is it an addition to the list of prohibited causes of action
`
`in Section (3)(B).
`
`40.
`
`Instead, section 3(C)(vi) protection is simply an authorized action an employer is
`
`allowed to take for applicants who fail the requirements of Section (3)(A)-(B).
`
`41.
`
`For an illustrative example of the section 3(C)(vi) protection for employers, an
`
`applicant for a non-safety sensitive position would not be protected if they failed a pre-employment
`
`test for the presence of cocaine. That applicant could not sue even if they were a medical marijuana
`
`patient.
`
`42.
`
`Likewise, if a job applicant failed a marijuana test but it was for a safety sensitive
`
`position, that applicant could not sue the employer under (3)(B)(iii).
`
`43. However, an employer cannot fire or decline to hire a medical marijuana patient for
`
`a non safety-sensitive position because of a positive marijuana test away from work because of
`
`Sections (3)(B)(ii) and (iii) that outline the protections of Section (3)(a).
`
`44.
`
`To find otherwise is to also render the words “safety sensitive” (3)(B)(iii)
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 9
`
`meaningless.
`
`45.
`
`Even so, Defendants’ policy is that it fires anyone, including qualifying medical
`
`marijuana card holders, who test positive for marijuana.
`
`46.
`
`Further, the Governor of Arkansas at no point was given power by the Legislature
`
`to issue a temporary Executive Order overriding Act 593 of the 2017 General Assembly because of
`
`COVID, as such an executive order could only apply, if at all, to statutes, regulations, or policies,
`
`and not to Act 593 of 2017 which is a Constitutional Amendment.
`
`47.
`
`In other words, it is not a defense to this action that any of Governor Hutchinson’s
`
`executive orders overrode Arkansas medical marijuana patient employment law, because that law
`
`is Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution, which no Governor can override by any Executive
`
`Order.
`
`48.
`
`In sum, the effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff
`
`of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee
`
`because of her qualifying medical marijuana patient status.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.
`
`The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with reckless
`
`indifference to the constitutional and statutorily protected rights of Plaintiff.
`
`51.
`
`Pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, as amended, Plaintiff is entitled to, and
`
`they seek, the sum of her back pay lost wages or salary, benefits and/or other compensation denied
`
`or loss to her by reason of Defendants’ violations of the Arkansas Constitution and ACRA, plus
`
`any interest she is entitled to for these causes because Defendants’ violations were malicious and
`
`Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing that its actions were not in violation of the
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 10
`
`ACRA.
`
`52.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Arkansas
`
`Constitution and Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries and
`
`damages:
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`a. She has lost a significant sum of income in the past and will continue to do
`so in the future;
`b. She has lost the fringe benefits of their employment;
`c. Plaintiff is unable to procure equivalent employment due to her having been
`fired;
`d. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur substantial attorneys’ fees;
`for all of which she should be compensated.
`
`Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.C.A. §16-123-105.
`
`IV.
`Second claim for relief:
`Class action violation of Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`fully set forth in this section.
`
`55.
`
`This is also a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Plaintiff Taylor ais members of a class of employees and applicants who were denied employment
`
`in violation of Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff asserts violations of Amendment 98 on behalf of a class of all persons who
`
`were denied or fired from employment by Defendants solely on the basis of their medical marijuana
`
`patient status from the date of one year prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit, through the
`
`time of the trial of this case.
`
`57.
`
`The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. While the
`
`exact number and identities of Class members are unknown at this time, and can only be
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 11
`
`ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believe that at least forty (40) but as many as
`
`one-hundred (100) putative class members have applied to work for Defendant but been denied
`
`employment, or worked for Defendant and were denied continued employment, as described
`
`herein, during the applicable statutory period.
`
`58.
`
`This litigation is properly brought as a class action because of the existence of
`
`questions of fact and law common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting
`
`only individual members, including:
`
`(a) The policy of Defendant to fire and not hire medical marijuana patients who test
`positive for marijuana only;
`(b) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class were not hired for that reason alone;
`and
`(c) Whether the back pay owed to Plaintiff and members of the Class can easily be
`calculated by the rate of pay of the positions applied for or worked in and the date of
`denial or firing.
`
`59.
`
`This litigation is properly brought as a class action because Plaintiff’s claims are
`
`typical of the claims of the members of the Class, inasmuch as all such claims arise from
`
`Defendants’ standard policies and practices, as alleged herein. Like all Class members, Plaintiffs
`
`were injured by Defendants’ policies and practices of firing and failure to hire qualified medical
`
`marijuana patients.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of the
`
`Class. Plaintiff ais committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and has retained
`
`competent counsel experienced in class litigation.
`
` Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate
`
`representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.
`
`61.
`
`A class action is an appropriate and superior method for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the present controversy given the following factors:
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Common questions of law and/or fact predominate over any
`individual questions which may arise, and, accordingly, there would
`accrue enormous savings to both the Court and the Class in litigating
`the common issues on a class-wide instead of on a repetitive individual
`basis;
`
`Despite the relatively small size of individual Class members’ claims,
`their aggregate volume, coupled with the economies of scale inherent
`in litigating similar claims on a common basis, will enable this case to
`be litigated as a Class action on a cost-effective basis, especially when
`compared with repetitive individual litigation; and
`
`No unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management
`of this class action in that all questions of law and/or fact to be litigated
`at the liability stage of this action are common to the Class.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff is aware of no members of the proposed class who have an interest in
`
`
`
`
`
`individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions; neither is Plaintiff aware of any other
`
`litigation concerning this particular controversy.
`
`63.
`
`Class certification is fair and efficient because prosecution of separate actions by
`
`individual Class members would create a risk of differing adjudications with respect to such
`
`individual members of the Class, which as a practical matter may be dispositive of the interests of
`
`other members not parties to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to
`
`protect their interests.
`
`64.
`
`The class is defined as all applicants and employees who were denied or fired from
`
`employment by Defendants in Arkansas, with the exception of those jointly employed by
`
`Northwest Arkansas Hospitals, LLC, solely on the basis of their medical marijuana patient status
`
`from the date of one year prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
`
`65.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-02121-PKH Document 2 Filed 07/01/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 13
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Erica Taylor prays for an award of a class action; for judgment
`
`against Defendants; for a jury trial; for attorneys’ fees and costs; for punitive and constitutional
`
`damages; and for all other proper relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ERICA TAYLOR,
`PLAINTIFF
`
`WH Law | We Help
`1 Riverfront Pl. – Suite 745
`North Little Rock, AR 72114
`(501) 891–6000
`
`By: /s/ Chris W. Burks
`Chris W. Burks
`ABN: 2010207
`chris@wh.law
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`