UTICA: Two city firefighters are challenging unpaid suspensions tied to medical cannabis use, specifically regarding the Utica firefighters medical cannabis debate, putting the city’s drug-testing rules and New York’s patient protections at the center of a local employment dispute.
The cases were filed in September, not this week. WUTR reported Oct. 29, citing the Daily Sentinel, that firefighters Ryan Quinn and Marc Manno brought a joint challenge and Quinn filed a separate salary-related case in state Supreme Court.
The firefighters contend that their medically authorized cannabis use should not have led to discipline. City officials defend the suspensions as enforcement of the labor contract and a public-safety policy. The available reporting does not establish a court ruling resolving that disagreement.
The implications of this case extend to all individuals involved in the Utica firefighters medical cannabis discussions, highlighting the need for clarity in policies surrounding medical use in the workplace.
What the firefighters allege
According to the Observer-Dispatch’s Oct. 30 report, the firefighters’ lawsuit challenges suspensions imposed after random tests detected cannabis metabolites. Both men say they held medical cannabis certifications and supplied medical documentation to the city.
The newspaper reported that Manno had a current certification issued April 1, 2026, and a physician’s note addressing his ability to perform his duties. It reported that Quinn’s certification dated to October 2024. Those details were described by the newspaper from court records; the Phoenix has not independently obtained the filings.
WUTR reported that Manno’s unpaid suspension began in late July and Quinn’s began Aug. 6, with each originally set at 60 days. It also reported that the union challenged the discipline through grievances that the city denied.
These are contested employment claims. A positive test, a patient’s certification and an employer’s disciplinary decision answer different questions. None alone settles whether the city complied with the contract or state law.
Quinn describes the impact and a separate pay dispute
In a signed Oct. 22 opinion article for Marijuana Moment, Quinn said neither firefighter had been observed or accused of being impaired on duty. His account is a plaintiff’s statement, not an independent finding.
Quinn wrote that the other firefighter stopped medical cannabis treatment and completed the city’s testing requirements to return to work. He said that firefighter’s suspension began July 29 and return-to-work approval came Oct. 9. Quinn described his own employment as uncertain as of the article’s publication.
Quinn also wrote that he injured his shoulder while responding to a January fire, remained unable to resume full firefighting duties and was seeking surgery. He said he was representing himself in a separate case over interrupted salary and participating in a city-ordered substance-abuse evaluation and return-to-duty process.
He described substantial financial pressure on his family. His account also said that returning to work had not ended the other firefighter’s legal challenge. The Phoenix has not independently confirmed either man’s current duty or pay status.
The city’s position
Mayor Mike Galime told the Observer-Dispatch that the firefighters “were not following contractual protocol for the use of controlled substances.” He defended a zero-tolerance approach by citing the city’s responsibility to ensure emergency responders can work safely and the difficulty of determining cannabis impairment at a particular moment.
Separately, WUTR reported that attorney Earl Redding, representing the defendants, argued the suspensions were authorized by the collective bargaining agreement. The city sought dismissal over an asserted failure to file notices of claim, and Redding raised the possibility of a stay while arbitration proceeds, the station reported.
A request for dismissal is not a dismissal. Likewise, a party’s description of what a contract permits is not a judicial ruling that the interpretation is correct.
What New York’s medical cannabis law says
Cannabis Law Section 42 protects certified patients from penalties solely for certified medical cannabis use that complies with the law. It also treats certified-patient status as a disability under specified state laws, including the state Human Rights Law.
Those protections are not permission to work while impaired. The statute expressly preserves policies barring employees from performing their duties while impaired by a controlled substance. It also does not require an employer to violate federal law or lose a federal contract or funding.
Section 42 further addresses employees whose medical cannabis use may limit or require changes to their duties. It provides the same applicable rights, procedures and protections available to injured workers taking medications that may affect their work. How those provisions apply to these firefighters cannot be decided from the public accounts alone.
Testing, off-duty use and workplace safety
Labor Law Section 201-d separately protects lawful off-duty cannabis use away from an employer’s premises and property. Its cannabis-specific exceptions allow action required by law or governmental mandate, action involving specified symptoms of impairment at work, and action needed to avoid violating federal law or losing federal funding or a contract.
The law also contains provisions involving collective bargaining agreements and official duties. Their interaction with the cannabis-specific protections is part of the legal context, not a basis for declaring either side the winner without reviewing the claims and defenses.
The state Department of Labor’s workplace guidance says a cannabis-use test does not itself demonstrate impairment. It distinguishes evidence of use from observable symptoms that reduce job performance or interfere with workplace safety.
That guidance expressly concerns adult-use cannabis and says it does not address medical use. It helps explain the testing distinction, but it is not a ruling on the Utica cases.
Why the salary case is a separate issue
General Municipal Law Section 207-a provides salary and medical-care protections for qualifying paid firefighters injured or made ill in the performance of their duties. It includes conditions involving medical examinations, recovery, available light-duty work and other employment.
Those provisions explain why a dispute over injury-related salary raises questions beyond a drug test. They do not establish whether Quinn meets every requirement or whether the city’s action was lawful.
The next essential reporting steps are to obtain the complaints, the city’s responses, the relevant contract language and the current court docket. Those records are needed to verify the precise relief sought, the procedural status and any rulings since the published reports.
Editor’s hold for draft review: Do not publish without reviewing the underlying filings and current docket, confirming duty and pay status, and checking the latest city and plaintiffs’ positions. NYSCEF access was unavailable during preparation. This draft relies on the linked reporting, Quinn’s clearly attributed op-ed and the official statutes and guidance. No direct interviews were conducted.
