Florida Firefighter’s Medical Marijuana Case Could Head to State Supreme Court

A Hillsborough County firefighter-paramedic’s yearslong legal battle over off-duty medical marijuana use may be heading to the Florida Supreme Court—and the outcome could affect patients, public employees and workplace drug policies throughout the state.

Angelo Giambrone was placed on unpaid administrative leave after a random drug test returned positive for marijuana in 2019. He held a valid Florida medical marijuana card and said he used cannabis outside work to address post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and sleep problems.

There was no allegation that Giambrone consumed marijuana at work, possessed it on county property or reported for duty while impaired. The drug screening was random, rather than prompted by an accident, performance problem or suspicion of impairment.

That distinction is central to the case.

A trial court initially ruled in Giambrone’s favor, but Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal reversed that decision on July 29, 2026. His attorney now plans to ask the Florida Supreme Court to review the ruling, according to the Miami Herald.

What happened to Hillsborough firefighter Angelo Giambrone?

Giambrone worked as a firefighter-paramedic for Hillsborough County Fire Rescue. After his random test came back positive for marijuana, he presented his valid medical marijuana card.

The county nevertheless placed him on unpaid administrative leave under its drug-free workplace policy.

Giambrone sued Hillsborough County, alleging disability discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract and failure to accommodate his lawful medical cannabis use.

In December 2024, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Melissa Polo sided with Giambrone. The court awarded him back pay and compensatory damages while ordering the county to accommodate employees who presented valid medical marijuana cards after positive tests when no evidence of workplace use or impairment existed.

For patients and advocates, the decision recognized a basic principle: detecting inactive cannabis metabolites is not the same as proving someone was impaired at work.

Hillsborough County appealed—and the appellate court reached a different conclusion.

Why did the appellate court side with Hillsborough County?

The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court’s conclusions could not be reconciled with the language of Florida’s medical marijuana laws, Hillsborough County’s workplace policy and the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The appellate court found that a medical marijuana certification is not legally identical to a conventional prescription. Under Florida law, physicians “certify” or “recommend” medical cannabis, while licensed Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers dispense it. It is not prescribed and filled by a pharmacist in the traditional sense.

The court also rejected the argument that Florida’s medical marijuana amendment automatically requires employers to accommodate off-duty use.

The appellate opinion stressed that the ruling is narrow. It concerns the interaction between Florida law, Hillsborough County’s policy and the particular collective bargaining agreement governing these employees.

In other words, the decision does not declare that every Florida employer must discipline every medical marijuana patient who tests positive. But it does demonstrate how few explicit workplace protections Florida patients currently possess.

Was Giambrone accused of being impaired at work?

No evidence cited by the trial court showed that Giambrone used or possessed marijuana at work, performed his duties while impaired or had previous workplace complaints involving suspected impairment.

That raises a larger problem with traditional cannabis testing.

Urine tests can establish previous exposure to THC, but they generally cannot determine whether a person was impaired during a particular shift. Cannabis metabolites may remain detectable long after the intoxicating effects have ended.

A firefighter, paramedic, police officer or other safety-sensitive employee should never be impaired while working. Almost nobody disputes that. The real question is whether a lawful patient should lose a career based solely on off-duty use when the employer has no evidence of workplace impairment.

That is a question Florida lawmakers have repeatedly failed to answer clearly.

Does Florida law protect medical marijuana patients at work?

Florida voters approved constitutional medical marijuana access in 2016. However, legalization did not give registered patients comprehensive employment protections.

Florida law permits employers to maintain drug-free workplace policies and does not require them to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace or an employee working under the influence.

What remains disputed is how employers should treat lawful, off-duty use when no evidence of on-duty impairment exists.

The Giambrone case illustrates the contradiction. Florida recognizes someone as a qualified patient and authorizes that person to obtain medical cannabis—but the same patient may still suffer serious employment consequences for following a physician’s recommendation away from work.

That is legalization with an asterisk large enough to block the firehouse door.

How could federal marijuana rescheduling affect the appeal?

Federal policy is changing, but it remains complicated.

The federal government has undertaken proceedings to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. In April 2026, the Justice Department separately placed state-licensed medical marijuana and certain FDA-approved marijuana products into Schedule III, while broader federal rescheduling proceedings continued.

The DEA’s rescheduling docket confirms that formal proceedings over marijuana’s broader classification remain active.

Rescheduling matters because Schedule I historically defined marijuana as having no accepted medical use under federal law. That classification has been used for decades to justify discrimination against patients—even in states where medical cannabis is legal.

Moving medical marijuana into Schedule III strengthens the argument that the federal government can no longer pretend cannabis has no legitimate medical value.

However, rescheduling alone does not automatically legalize cannabis nationwide, erase every federal restriction or create workplace protections under Florida law. Those protections must come from clear legislation, updated employment policies, collective bargaining or further court decisions.

Why this case matters to first responders

First responders experience high rates of PTSD, anxiety, disrupted sleep and occupational stress. Some become medical marijuana patients after finding that conventional medications do not provide adequate relief or produce unacceptable side effects.

These workers should be judged by their conduct and fitness for duty—not punished for the mere presence of a metabolite left behind by lawful off-duty treatment.

Employers have a legitimate responsibility to protect patients, coworkers and the public from actual impairment. Employees also deserve policies grounded in evidence rather than stigma.

Those goals can coexist.

Modern workplace rules should distinguish between use and impairment, provide clear procedures for registered patients and rely on observable evidence whenever possible. A zero-tolerance policy based solely on an old drug test is not automatically a safety policy. Sometimes it is simply an outdated policy.

What happens next?

Giambrone’s attorney plans to seek review by the Florida Supreme Court. That does not guarantee that the court will accept the case or reverse the appellate decision.

Until further action occurs, the Second District’s ruling remains an important warning for Florida medical marijuana patients: possessing a valid card does not necessarily protect your job after a positive test.

Employees—especially those in safety-sensitive positions—should review their employer’s written policies, union agreement and testing procedures. Anyone facing discipline should consult a qualified Florida employment attorney rather than assuming a medical marijuana card provides automatic protection.

Florida needs real medical cannabis employment protections

Patients should not have to choose between following a physician’s advice and keeping the careers they spent years building.

Suncoast NORML supports workplace policies that protect public safety while respecting the dignity and legal rights of medical cannabis patients. Being impaired on duty and testing positive for past cannabis use are not scientifically or morally equivalent.

Florida legalized medical marijuana nearly a decade ago. It is time for our employment laws to catch up.

Patients, workers and first responders deserve rules based on impairment, evidence and fairness—not outdated assumptions about cannabis.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Florida employee be fired for using medical marijuana?

Potentially, yes. Florida does not provide comprehensive employment protection for all registered medical marijuana patients, and employers may enforce qualifying drug-free workplace policies.

Does a Florida medical marijuana card excuse a positive drug test?

Not automatically. The answer may depend on the employer’s policy, the employee’s contract or collective bargaining agreement, the nature of the job and the circumstances surrounding the test.

Did the court find that Giambrone was impaired at work?

No evidence cited in the case showed that he used marijuana at work, possessed it on county property or performed his duties while impaired.

Will the Florida Supreme Court hear the case?

Giambrone’s attorney intends to request review, but the Florida Supreme Court will decide whether to accept the case.

Would federal rescheduling protect Florida employees?

Not by itself. Rescheduling could change some legal arguments and recognize marijuana’s medical value, but explicit state employment protections would still be needed.

This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.