ACLU sues Wal-Mart for firing employee using medical marijuana

[copobo]

amazingly, I am hearing allot of employers are fine with MMJ. Of course I am in Boulder County.

ACLU sues Wal-Mart for firing employee using medical marijuana - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/29/medical.marijuana.walmart.lawsuit/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn)

(CNN) -- The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart for the termination of a Michigan employee whose doctor verified his illness qualified for medical marijuana use.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, fired Joseph Casias in November 2009 after he failed an on-the-job injury-related drug test. Casias suffers from a rare form of cancer in his nasal cavity and brain, and he relied on his doctor's medical marijuana prescription to alleviate the daily pain. Casias is one of about 20,000 legal medical marijuana users in Michigan.
"Medical marijuana has had a life-changing positive effect for Joseph, but Wal-Mart made him pay a stiff and unfair price for his medicine," said Scott Michelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project.
"No patient should be forced to choose between adequate pain relief and gainful employment, and no employer should be allowed to intrude upon private medical choices made by employees in consultation with their doctors," Michelman said.
Wal-Mart officials say they are sympathetic to Casias' condition, but the company needed to put the safety of its customers and associates first.
"As more states allow this treatment, employers are left without any guidelines except the federal standard," wrote Lorenzo Lopez, a director of media relations at Wal-Mart, in an e-mail to CNN. "In these cases, until further guidance is available, we will always default to what we believe is the safest environment for our associates and customers."
The ACLU's lawsuit, filed in Calhoun County Circuit Court in Michigan, comes at a time when the controversy over medical marijuana is still being debated in many states. To date, 14 states have laws allowing the use of medical marijuana, which protect legal users from criminalization. But the laws are murky when it comes to protecting users from termination by their employers in some states.
Casias told CNN in March that he never arrived at work high and used the medical marijuana only outside of his work hours.
Michigan is an at-will employment state, which means employers can terminate a worker for any reason except for being in a federally protected class such as race, gender and religion. The ACLU is arguing legal medical marijuana users should also be protected under a Michigan law.
"I was angry they did this to me because I always tried my best," Casias said to CNN in March. He had worked for Wal-Mart for nearly five years to support his wife and two young children. He started at the company as a grocery store stocker in 2004 before moving up to become an inventory control manager. He earned an Associate of the Year Award at Wal-Mart in 2008, a year before his termination
He has battled with his cancer for more than a decade. The lawsuit says the medical marijuana was able to provide him with pain relief.

[canaguy27]

here we go. of course they had to pick the DEEPEST POCKET EVER to go up against to set some case law. fingers crossed

[cologrower420]

here we go. of course they had to pick the DEEPEST POCKET EVER to go up against to set some case law. fingers crossed

As long as pot is illegal at the federal level, then walmart was following the law and isn't liable in that regard.

If the result is to raise awareness or seek a settlement, than it might succeed in that sense, but there is just no way the aclu thinks it wins this case.

I didn't click the link though.

[neversummer]

I can fire someone because i dont like the way they look. That is the great part of owning your own business and being the boss, you get to hire and fire your employees. No one has a right to work anywhere. This suing shit is ridiculous. That guy should find a job where they are cool with mmj. Fuck walmart

[copobo]

lol, no, you can't fire someone for the way they look (except during the first 90 days usually)

And for employers of that size, there are many rules and you can certainly sue.

[PolishPotFarmer]

Colorado is an 'employment at will' state which means you can be fired for any reason or NO reason at all. Including looking funny. :hippy:

[copobo]

not sure about MI, but it isn't that simple.

Employment
At Will

In the majority of states, employees not working under an employment contract are deemed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. There are numerous illegal reasons for termination. Typically such reasons fall into one of two large categories: illegal discrimination or illegal termination in violation of a public policy. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract.

In Colorado, there are two exceptions to the at-will rule based upon the legal principles of "public policy" and "implied contract." First, the public policy exception simply means that an employee cannot be fired for performing a legal duty or exercising a legal right. Second, a binding employment relationship may be found to have been created by an implied or an express contract. The contract theory usually arises in situations in which procedures outlined in personnel handbooks are construed as a contract between the employer and employee.

and Matt - FUCK OFF YOU SELL OUT!

[HighPopalorum]

I can fire someone because i dont like the way they look.

Sort of.... as copobo says, Colorado, as well as Michigan, is an at will employment state. You can fire people for most any reason other than age, race, gender, religion, national origin or disability. I'm not an attorney, but many MMJ patients are medically disabled, and it might be possible some kind of case could be made on those grounds.

[HighPopalorum]

I just read the complaint (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/casias_complaint_6_24_10.pdf). It's interesting reading.

[cologrower420]

Since walmart is operating across state lines, wouldn't federal laws apply, which state marijuana is an illegal controlled substance? Therefor according to federal law, Walmart is legally allowed to fire employees who fail drug tests.

I'm sure they'll settle to keep things quiet, but I still don't think state medical marijuana laws apply here.

Don't those just allow an affirmative defense of a crime (state level)? What crime did this guy commit? Why would state medical marijuana laws apply in this scenario?

[cologrower420]

Since walmart is operating across state lines, wouldn't federal laws apply, which state marijuana is an illegal controlled substance? Therefor according to federal law, Walmart is legally allowed to fire employees who fail drug tests.

I'm sure they'll settle to keep things quiet, but I still don't think state medical marijuana laws apply here.

Don't those just allow an affirmative defense of a crime (state level)? What crime did this guy commit? Why would state medical marijuana laws apply in this scenario?

i tried to edit my post above. I also read the complaint, and I guess it's up to the aclu to prove that the guy got fired for being disabled, not just the act of failing a drug test. Or something.

[HighPopalorum]

i tried to edit my post above. I also read the complaint, and I guess it's up to the aclu to prove that the guy got fired for being disabled, not just the act of failing a drug test. Or something.

Well... that is not really what the complaint says. It makes two specific charges, but they're really two ways of looking at the same thing. First, the ACLU claims that Wal-Mart broke general state policy by firing Casias unlawfully. (MMJ patients in Michigan are specifically protected from disciplinary action by businesses, so long as they are in accordance with state MMJ law.) The second charge is that Wal-Mart violated the MMMA provisions that guarantee those protections.

That is my layman's reading of the complaint. Lawyers please chime in, because I'm often full of shit.

[cologrower420]

Well... that is not really what the complaint says. It makes two specific charges, but they're really two ways of looking at the same thing. First, the ACLU claims that Wal-Mart broke general state policy by firing Casias unlawfully. (MMJ patients in Michigan are specifically protected from disciplinary action by businesses, so long as they are in accordance with state MMJ law.) The second charge is that Wal-Mart violated the MMMA provisions that guarantee those protections.

That is my layman's reading of the complaint. Lawyers please chime in, because I'm often full of shit.
You are probably correct. I am assuming walmart's defense will be they were just following federal guidelines, or something. But I'm not sure how that would work in a state court.

Don't you think it will be difficult for the aclu to prove that they broke state law? We aren't talking about 'legal' prescriptions for vicodin or something else. We are talking about something that is still illegal according to federal law, which always trumps state law, with no exceptions. I think it's an important distinction that we are talking about something that's legal at the state level but illegal at the federal level.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not familiar with the law, and I'm likely not seeing something.

Would you agree that this lawsuit has a tiny but non-zero chance of a court finding walmart liable for damages? the damage being lost time, etc. We're assuming they are found guilty of what they are accused of. Or something.

[HighPopalorum]

I'm not able to judge the merits of the complaint; there may be a legal silver bullet in there, but I don't have the knowledge to recognize legal salience. To my mind, Wal-Mart violated state law. (The MMMA protects â??[a] qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification cardâ?� from, among other things, â??disciplinary action by a business . . . for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act . . . .â?�) State law is just as binding as Federal law. I'm not going to parse out the text like I do with our own laws, but I think the ACLU might have a case: after all, this will be a jury trial.

I look forward to the ACLU of Colorado whittling down the hard edges of our own state MMJ laws. Fight the good fight with us. (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2125&2125.donation=form1&s_src=UNW100001C00&s_subsrc=getinvolvedmenu_join_hp) Freedom doesn't protect itself.

[michaelnights]

333.26424 Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business . . .

In September of 2009 I attended a seminar held by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association in Ann Arbor and this HR issue got a lot of attention. It was conceded this provision of their mmj law would likely be tested by the courts and it was hoped the plaintiff would be someone worthy of the legal fight -- someone exactly like

"Joseph Casias, a 30-year-old resident of Battle Creek, Michigan [a husband and father,] has been living with sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor for over a decade. Josephâ??s condition has required extensive treatment and chemotherapy, interferes with his ability to speak, and is a source of severe and daily pain."

In March of 2010 I sent an email to Wal-Mart expressing my disappointment for Casias' termination and their attempts to deny him unemployment benefits. This was their reply.

Response from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Ref #000000024869182)
Sunday, March 14, 2010 1:47 PM

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your recent inquiry. In states, such as Michigan, where prescriptions for marijuana can be obtained, an employer can still enforce a policy that requires termination of employment following a positive drug screen.

We believe our policy complies with the law and we support decisions based on the policy.

Sincerely,
Walmart Customer Care

If this situation happened at any other company, for public relations purposes, they'd settle out of court, have the court record sealed and pay for the silence of the plaintiff.

So the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association got it's wish. They got the poster-boy of MMJ, the poster-boy of Bad Actor Companies (the BP of retail) and the ACLU.

This case will set legal precedence. MMJ patient's throughout the USA will benefit, regardless of the outcome, because Wal-Mart will be bloodied by the experience in the national press. And, that will give all corporate executives cause to rethink their HR policies towards MMJ.

[cologrower420]

I think that's a pretty feel good story. There are still many, many people who view marijuana as an illegal narcotic, and hearing about someone getting fired for a positive drug test isn't a negative with them, and those types of people are who would serve on a jury.

I just don't think there is any way that walmart loses this jury trial. settlement perhaps, but that doesn't set a precedent or anything.

[Delta9Caregivrs]

I have a close friend who was fired from Lucky Store at the Mall for nearly the Same thing.... Since Lucky or really most retail corps can't/wont trust their staff they have the manager inspect all purses of the staff before leaving..

Well you guessed it... mistakes happen and just so happend to be a small ziplock containing less than 2 grams of MMJ in my friends purse she didnt realize... (Girls always have like 2 dozen purses in the closet.. sometimes you grab one and go ya know..?) the manager feels inside for stolen merch and bang whats this...

My friends quickly pulls out her MMJ Card and the the manger calls her higher ups... they rule in 2 seconds... FIRED.

I think its bullshit to have to lose a job because you use this medicine...

But with that said ... Everyone should know your MMJ Card does not protect you from lanlords or employment drug screens...

and of course dont bring your meds to work at the mall:thumbsup:

[HighPopalorum]

Everyone should know your MMJ Card does not protect you from lanlords

There was a story (http://www.cpr.org/#load_article|Landlords%2C_Tenants%2C_and_Medical_ Marijuana) on public radio's Colorado Matters on landlords, tenants and medical marijuana. The attorney interviewed is very clear; he advises tenants and landlords to have a frank conversation about medical marijuana use and to modify the contractual language accordingly. He also explains that growing marijuana likely violates multiple provisions of the standard residential lease.

"It's perfectly legal to grow corn in the state of Colorado, but that doesn't mean you can grow it in the living room of your landlord's apartment."