California Supreme Court: It's Okay to Fire Employees Prescribed Medical Marijuana

Posted by Alex in Crime & Law, Medicine, Politics on January 25, 2008 at 3:59 am


The California Supreme Court has just ruled that employers can fire workers using marijuana, even if they got it legally prescribed to them under the state’s medicinal marijuana law.

At the center of the case was Gary Ross’s claim that his 2001 firing was illegal. Ross, 45, was fired from his job at a network server center in Sacramento in 2001 just a week after being hired.

The employer, RagingWire, discovered Ross used marijuana to treat an old back injury. In a statement to News10, RagingWire defended the firing because Ross knew he could be called in to work at any time.

Here’s the majority ruling:

In the ruling issued Thursday morning, the majority ruling said, "Plaintiff’s position might have merit if the Compassionate Use Act gave
marijuana the same status as any legal prescription drug. But the act’s effect is not
so broad. No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law."

While Ross claimed his firing violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the ruling states, "The FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs."

The court said while the Compassionate Use Act allows medical marijuana users to avoid prosecution under state law, "… we have no reason to conclude the voters intended to speak so broadly, and in a context so far removed from the criminal law, as to require employers to accommodate marijuana use."

"We thus conclude plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy," wrote the justices.

What do you think? Do you agree with the Court’s ruling? Link


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

19 comments to "California Supreme Court: It's Okay to Fire Employees Prescribed Medical Marijuana"

  1. MoonCake
    January 25th, 2008 at 6:22 am

    as much as i am for pot consumption, the guy knew he could have been called in to work at any time. although smoking it doesn't really screw up your perception even as much as presciption drugs can, customers and fellow employees don't want to see you all high and stuff.

  2. Amuseal
    January 25th, 2008 at 6:50 am

    On the one side, it looks like unfair to fire such people, they fall victims under different circumstances. Funny thing is federal law comes into conflict with legal drugs. Let's take papaverous buns as an example, which also can show opiates in urine.

  3. Tim
    January 25th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    It's no different than if you showed up on a prescribed narcotic and tried to operate heavy machinery. Your judgement is impared as well as your coordination. I'd fire your asdas in a second if you showed up to my job on drugs...

  4. sparge
    January 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Would they have fired him if they found out he was an alcoholic?

  5. Steve
    January 25th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    The Court's decision makes sense both legally (it follows the law) and practically (no employer should have to suffer a worker under the influence of any drug).

  6. JDJK
    January 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Apples to oranges sparge. Alcohol is a legal substance Mary Jane is not. My question is if they can fire you for using prescription MJ could they fire you if your doctor prescribes a mild pain killer, or other prescription drugs? For arguments sake lets say he wasn't using MJ while at work just when he got home on his own time. How is that different than other prescription drugs? There are literally hundreds of prescription drugs that are illegal on the federal and state level but can still be prescribed to you....

    My gut tells me there were personal reasons and the prescription MJ was just the best reason to get rid of him...

  7. sam
    January 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am

    not really apples to oranges. if he was an alcoholic that would be a lot worse. you can't be drunk if you're on call 24/7. this is such bullshit, it should be legal anyway. If the govornment didn't make so much more money by having it illegal im sure they would

  8. sparge
    January 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am

    JDJK: Pot being illegal works for the court's decision, but what about the decision to fire him in the first place? Seems like the company is hinging their defense on the "he could be called in at any time" reasoning, not the "we don't associate with people involved in illegal activities" reasoning. So my question is: if you work for this company, are you expected to refrain from any voluntary activity that would render you unable to perform your job, no matter whether it would affect you during your normal shift or not?

  9. greg
    January 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    JDJK, in this case, the mary jane was just as legal as alcohol. I really don't get this, the guy had a prescription and pot affects you less than pills like ambien, oxycotin and many other so called "legal" drugs. I hope this country wakes up soon and legalizes marijuana. The only reason its illegal is because it was popular with black people and racism was the thing to do at the time.

  10. luvpumpkns
    January 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    I'm not sure I quite understand. It seems to me that whatever his illness is should be of more concern to the company than the drug prescribed to treat or lessen the illness' effects. In other words, knowing what kinds of illnesses that can be treated with medicinal marijuana, I find it hard to believe that his treatment of his illness caused more problems than the illness itself.

  11. aerio
    January 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    My sister sells snow to the snowbirds,
    My father makes bootlegger gin,
    My mother sells wine from the grapes on our wine,
    My god! How the money rolls in.

    Where was pots Pauline Sabine?

  12. aerio
    January 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Double entry and I am sorry for that, I just felt it necessary to add that by and large most people when taking doses of THC responsibly for pain will not get 'high' on it even if they've previously taken it recreationally. If you're in a high amount of pain the THC you ingest to get rid of the pain will not be enough to alter your state of mind. You would have to keep on smoking and then smoke some more.

  13. Jimbo
    January 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    The Anti-Pot movement was a racial biased thing anyway. The term "Drug Crazed Negro" was always used to get what they wanted. More powerful guns and etc.. (History Channel report to Drug Use in America)

    The Harrison Tax Act was the first to call some drugs illegal to use without a tax stamp, to quiet down the blacks.

    Prior to that you had a right to consume anything you wanted. Even soft drinks had cocaine in them.

  14. Jimbo
    January 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    BTW, Pot is harmless. Tax the crap out of it and let them smoke it if they want.

  15. esteban
    January 25th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    I guess the precedent is set. Now we can legally fire everyone taking prescribed medicines that affect judgment or cause drowsiness.

  16. greg
    January 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    I know I'd fire an employee if I found out he was on dimatap or nyquil. Imagine if I called him up at night and he was too drowzy from the cold medicine to function? Pandemonium!

  17. VonSkippy
    January 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Funny how most companies only want to PAY their workers for 8hrs/5days, but they want to CONTROL their workers 24/7.

  18. ted
    January 25th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    I'm sure he was getting paid pretty well for being available 24/7.

  19. shmee
    January 26th, 2008 at 4:40 am

    i go to work high all the time, just makes the kids seem less annoying. no big woop


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS