MM Patients Can Now Be Fired For Using Medical Marijuana Even with Doctor Approval

[Jay Matix]

CA Supreme Court Rules Employers Can Discriminate Against Workers Using Medical Marijuana

Jan 24th, 2008. The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that employers can drug test and fire workers for using medical marijuana. The court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Gary Ross under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) arguing that he had been wrongfully denied employment by RagingWire Telecommunications on account of testing positive for past use of marijuana on a urine test.

The court took a narrow interpretation of Prop. 215, ruling that it did not create a general right to use medical marijuana, but only protected patients from criminal sanction for possession or cultivation of marijuana.

Sponsors of Prop 215 contested this interpretation. "Prop. 215 was intended to give patients the same right to use medical marijuana as other, legal prescription drugs," said California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer, a co-author of the initiative.

Assemblyman Mark Leno announced that he will sponsor a bill to restore workers' rights to use medical marijuana. "Today's California Supreme Court ruling strikes a serious blow to patientsπ rights," stated Leno. " Through the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 and SB 420 in 2004, the people of California did not intend that patients be unemployed in order to use medical marijuana."

In the meantime, the court's decision leaves the door open for discrimination against medical marijuana users via drug urine tests, even though not a single FDA study has ever proven that urine testing is either safe or effective in ensuring job safety. Text of the court's opinion in Ross v.Ragingwire:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S138130.PDF



Excerpt from majority opinion by Justice Kathryn Werdegar:

"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 (21 U.S.C. flfl 812, 844(a)), even for medical users (see Gonzalez v. Raich & U.S. v Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative). Instead of attempting the impossible, as we shall explain, California's voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees. "



Excerpt from dissent by Joyce Kennard (joined by Carlos Moreno)

The majority's decision leaves many Californians with serious illnesses just two options: continue receiving the benefits of marijuana use "in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or [] other illness" ... and become unemployed, giving up what may be their only source of income, or continue in their employment, discontinue marijuana treatment, and try to endure their chronic pain or other condition for which marijuana may provide the only relief. Surely this cruel choice is not what California voters intended when they enacted the state Compassionate Use Act. Nor is this cruel choice something that the FEHA permits. One of the FEHA's stated purposes is "to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of . . . physical disability . . . [or] medical condition . . . ."

[However, Kennard also ruled that employers could not be sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for firing medical marijuana users:

I agree with the majority, however, that because federal law prohibits marijuana possession (21 U.S.C. flfl 812, 844(a)), discharging an employee for off- duty, physician-recommended marijuana use will not support a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (see Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167). ]

Source: http://www.canorml.org/

____________
Most jobs, especially good paying jobs drug test. So this ruling basically puts EVERY medical marijuana patient at risk of losing their job if they use their medicine (which was prescribed by a doctor). This is bullshit!

Jay Matix Reviewed by Jay Matix on 01-31-2008. MM Patients Can Now Be Fired For Using Medical Marijuana Even with Doctor Approval CA Supreme Court Rules Employers Can Discriminate Against Workers Using Medical Marijuana Jan 24th, 2008. The California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that employers can drug test and fire workers for using medical marijuana. The court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Gary Ross under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) arguing that he had been wrongfully denied employment by RagingWire Telecommunications on account of testing positive for past use of marijuana on a Rating: 5

[8182KSKUSH]

Boo hoo.
I am a patient, I do not have any "special" rights that anyone else doesn't have.
I am soooo sick of the movement being solely focused on "patients rights", what the hell does that mean? It's bull shit and is not going to do anything to advance legalizaion or decriminalization, which is the right thing to do. The medical marijuana movement has been proped up and supported by George Soros, and his goonies. Most of the people that buy into this argument and advocate for it are very telling, they believe that "certain people" should have a special set of rules. That's wrong. This is the same thinking that gets you affirmative action (which is a racist policy) and hate crime legislation that most guilt ridden white bread democrats make themselves support so they feel less guilty about how they really feel, or they are really brainless and are just "true believers".

As for companies abiding by federal law, yeah, good idea. That is their right, you have the right to look for a different job, find something that fits your lifestyle, whatever. Figure it out, if you are a patient that truely believes that you should get "special rights" then you are truly clueless. Why don't you care about anyone that just recreationally uses marijuana losing their jobs? You as a patient, including myself, are not entitled to squat just because of a medical condition, that's not how life in these United States works folks. Good thing we live in a free country where anyone can start their own business at anytime. You can also choose where you work. Personally I am glad that this guy lost the law suit, I hate the entitlement mentality, and unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude out here in southern california.

[kgb420]

i have to agree. employers have the right to set their own rules and standards, when it comes to their business practice. i heard of a guy trying to sue a production company because they didn't let him smoke bongloads on set - that is just RIDICULOUS. so i agree with no "special rights" comment.

[Beefer86]

So lets say we counter this by making it illegal. Whats stopping the employer from firing you because they dont like you or the image you are presenting, or for an even dumber reason?

Remember that silly little thing that says you can be terminated without notice for any or no reason? Read that next time.

Does anyone ever read the fine print on their contracts? Or do you passively sign everything?

[Beefer86]

Boo hoo.
I am a patient, I do not have any "special" rights that anyone else doesn't have.
I am soooo sick of the movement being solely focused on "patients rights", what the hell does that mean? It's bull shit and is not going to do anything to advance legalizaion or decriminalization, which is the right thing to do. The medical marijuana movement has been proped up and supported by George Soros, and his goonies. Most of the people that buy into this argument and advocate for it are very telling, they believe that "certain people" should have a special set of rules. That's wrong. This is the same thinking that gets you affirmative action (which is a racist policy) and hate crime legislation that most guilt ridden white bread democrats make themselves support so they feel less guilty about how they really feel, or they are really brainless and are just "true believers".

As for companies abiding by federal law, yeah, good idea. That is their right, you have the right to look for a different job, find something that fits your lifestyle, whatever. Figure it out, if you are a patient that truely believes that you should get "special rights" then you are truly clueless. Why don't you care about anyone that just recreationally uses marijuana losing their jobs? You as a patient, including myself, are not entitled to squat just because of a medical condition, that's not how life in these United States works folks. Good thing we live in a free country where anyone can start their own business at anytime. You can also choose where you work. Personally I am glad that this guy lost the law suit, I hate the entitlement mentality, and unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude out here in southern california.

Beat me to it buddy.

[denial102]

yeah, this is nonsense really. You can't be dismissed for taking migraine tabs or painkillers, alcohol? or valium, all of which have a comparably identical or greater effect on brain chemistry in comparison to MMJ.Anabolics Steroids?



MMJ , Supress! Immediately! MMJ Is the devil, satan! etc. Sigh.
Same BS spouted out in the early 20th century, reefer madness! one puff and your gone'

Peace,
Denial

[8182KSKUSH]

yeah, this is nonsense really. You can't be dismissed for taking migraine tabs or painkillers, alcohol? or valium,

Yes you can be. Go ahead, down a fifth of jack and go to work and see what happens.

[dagshet]

hopefully most companies will just send you to rehab classes for a couple weeks and you can keep your job. its cheaper for the company to rehab you to can keep you than hire someone else who probably gets stoned anyways and wasn't unlucky like you who popped on a piss test.

[tha del sound]

what about before you have the job? can they discriminate against mmj patients? would the prescription show up on a background check or anything like that?

[8182KSKUSH]

what about before you have the job? can they discriminate against mmj patients? would the prescription show up on a background check or anything like that?

If it's there policy, and they state it prior to employment then that's their right. IT'S ILLEGAL.

There are alcholics that will have severe medical withdrawl that could cause death should they not drink, they are not entitled to drink at work. If an employer chooses to allow it then that's on them, but it is and should remain a choice. This is still a free society. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIAL RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU USE MARIUANA FOR MEDICINE!! The idea that you are is EXACTLY what is completely wrong with the MMJ movement in California and a clear indicator of the far left political affiliation that members of this movement share, for the most part. If they have a policy you don't care for then CHOOSE to do something else! Work somewhere else. START YOUR OWN BUSINESS! Then see how happy you are when the government tells you that you have to hire "certain" people for the business that you started, and invested your money in, and take the risk to run. Or that you can't fire someone that is violating your company policy. People get fired over plenty of other issues that they do that are COMPLETELY LEGAL. Why do you think you can violate federal law and MAKE your employer be ok with that? The issue isn't whether or not employers have the right, they do. It should be over the prohibtion of marijuana itself period.