USA - California Worker Fired for (Medical) Marijuana Use Can't Sue

[Paracelsus]

California Worker Fired for Marijuana Use Can't Sue

By Andrew Harris

Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- An employee fired for his medicinal use of marijuana can't sue his employer for unlawful discrimination under California law, the state's top court ruled.

In a 5-2 ruling today, California's Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision that plaintiff Gary Ross can't sue his employer, Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc., after it fired him for his off-duty medicinal smoking.

Nothing in California's voter-approved Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allows the smoking of marijuana when recommended by a physician, governs the ``respective rights and duties of employers and employees,'' Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar wrote for the majority.

Ross, a U.S. Air Force veteran, was fired by Sacramento, California-based Ragingwire, after a drug test required of new employees revealed his marijuana use, according to the court. Ross's physician had recommended marijuana to relieve pain associated with a back injury Ross sustained while in the service.

He sued the company claiming his firing was both an act of disability-based discrimination and a wrongful firing in violation of public policy.

California law permits employers to require pre-employment drug testing and to consider illegal drug use when making employment decisions, Werdegar said.

``The majority has seriously compromised the Compassionate Use Act, denying to those who must work for a living its promised benefits'' in treating cancer, AIDS, chronic pain and other medical conditions, Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in a dissenting opinion.

Kinnard agreed with the majority that Ross had no public policy-based claim because federal law makes marijuana possession and use illegal.

The case is Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc., S128130, California Supreme Court.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...zdg&refer=home

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for sharing. Two steps forward, one step back...

[moose190]

Since both these articles are related, I'll post it here instead of a new thread

Calif.: Firing Medical Marijuana Users OK

califflag.jpg

(CBS/AP) Employers can fire workers found to have used medical marijuana even if it was legally prescribed, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in another setback for California in its increasingly rancorous clash with federal law over medical pot use.

The high court upheld a Sacramento telecommunications company's firing of a man who flunked a company-ordered drug test. Gary Ross held a medical marijuana card authorizing him to legally use marijuana to treat a back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., successfully argued it rightfully fired Ross because all marijuana use is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

"No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the 5-2 majority.

Further, the state Supreme Court said the so-called Compassionate Use Act passed by California voters in 1996 had nothing to do with employment laws.

"Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees," Werdegar wrote. "Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions."

The Court said that just because certain people for medical reasons are allowed to smoke marijuana without fear of going to jail doesn't mean those same people can turn around and say they have a disability that must be protected by law from employers, says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

"I don't know how many people this would affect but I do know that had the ruling gone the other way it would have been a very, very big deal," Cohen said.

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from prosecution. The Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal agencies have been actively shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state over the last two years and charging their operators with serious felony distributions charges.

Raginwire said it fired Ross because it feared it could be the target of a federal raid, among other reasons.

Fast Fact

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from prosecution.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. had joined Ragingwire's case, arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the-court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

Ross had argued that medical marijuana users should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which represents Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it began tracking the issue in 2005.

Justice Joyce Kennard dissented attacking the majority's ruling in the dissent as "conspicuously lacking in compassion." Kennard said the ruling "disrespects" the California medical marijuana law, and said employers should be barred from firing workers who use medical marijuana as long as they continue to perform their jobs adequately.

"The majority gives employers permission to fire any employee who uses marijuana on a doctor's recommendation, without requiring the employer to show that this medical use will in any way impair the employer's business interests," wrote Kennard. She was joined in the dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is done.

[bcubed]

This ruling really doesn't surprise me. Most don't realize that US employment is "at will," meaning an employer can terminate an employee for any reason, at any time, regardless of how stupid it is! The only things that are illegal are firing in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, color, religion, sex, national origin), disabilities, and age (over 40). That's about it unless one enters into a binding contract with the employer (usually as part of a union negotiation, but I'll force myself to stay off that particular soapbox for now.)

So this guy was basically arguing the employer had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (federal law) despite the fact that MJ has no federal recognition as a medicine, which seems doomed to failure. Perhaps if he were a member of a CRA protected group, and could demonstrate the employer used it disproportionally (more than 30%(?) in excess) against that group, he'd have a case.

Incidentally, what rights does an employee have to take legal drugs? I know the FAA grounds pilots for anti-depressants, even when used off-label for smoking cessation and such. Can other industries not hire (or just not license) in similar situations?