Court Says California Employers Can Fire Employees and Avoid Lawsuits Over Medical Marijuana

The federal government's failure to recognize states' rights will push medical marijuana users into unemployment.

(SACRAMENTO) - A top California court says employee can be fired for their legal use of medical marijuana and they can't sue their employer for unlawful discrimination under California law.

The employment versus medical pot situation is at issue in Oregon as well, but a state legislative committee that met this week will not make any decisions on the matter until at least February.

Today the California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to uphold a lower-court decision that Gary Ross, plaintiff in the case, can not sue his employer, Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc., for firing him over off-duty medicinal smoking.

According to Bloomberg, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, who wrote for the majority, stated that California's voter-approved Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the law that allows medical marijuana use recommended by a physician, does not govern the "respective rights and duties of employers and employees."

The plaintiff in the California case is a U.S. military veteran and the injury that his physician believes marijuana would treat was sustained while Ross was in the service.

His lawsuit claimed that his dismissal amounted to disability-based discrimination and a wrongful firing in violation of public policy. He was caught in a standard company drug test administered to new employees.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in her dissenting opinion, "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, Bloomberg reported. But Kinnard agreed with the majority that Ross had no public policy-based claim because federal law makes marijuana possession and use illegal.

Salem-News.com Marijuana Coverage

Where and How to Smoke Legal Marijuana without Fear of Arrest in the U.S.

Eulogy of a Great Warrior: Hoss Plourde

The Ripple Effect How Marijuana Laws Are Impacting Society

Audit the Audit

Welcome Home, Tom

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Bob Wood March 30, 2011 11:40 am (Pacific time)

I really enjoyed reading this story. I agree with a lot of the poijnt of views this story provokes

Jefferson January 28, 2008 11:34 am (Pacific time)

Neal my statement was clear; your analysis may be skewed because of factors outside of your control?

Neal Feldman January 26, 2008 12:55 pm (Pacific time)

Jefferson - then you notice oddly. If the will of the voters violates the constitution that is one thing. None of these initiatives in Idaho do so. And the city council is not the legislature in case you had not noticed in civics class (if you ever even took a civics class that is). So exactly what off-topic irrelevancy are you harping on about now since you clearly have nothing relevant to say on this topic, hmmm? Seems that YOU want voters to have final say even IF constitutional rights are violated except in cases such as this. So doesn't that make YOU the bigger hypocrite, hmmm? Ah well...

Jefferson January 26, 2008 11:25 am (Pacific time)

I noticed for some, the will of the voter's should be the final authority, i.e. , if it fits one's agenda, then if not, then the legislator's should have the last word, i.e. , if it fits one's agenda...

Neal Feldman January 25, 2008 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

Ccitizen - Nope. Goes to show the failure of Prohibition all over again. There was an Idaho town that recently passed three pro-pot initiatives (well 2 pro-pot one pro-industrial hemp) and the city council of the town just voted to ignore all passed citizen initiatives. Don't you just love elected officials that respect the voice of the voters? Ah well...

Ccitizen January 25, 2008 7:30 am (Pacific time)

Ok...food for thought...can anyone name any other prescription-required medicine that needed voter approval?

Neal Feldman January 24, 2008 10:13 pm (Pacific time)

Don't be a complete nitwit. No one is saying they can smoke on the job or 'before work' but in CA it is legal, whatever the feds and their ridiculous failed policy say, for medical pot patients to use cannabis. As the recent hearing clearly proved in Salem, OR it is not a workplace safety issue, it IS a disability discrimination issue. And apparently the CA supreme court would rather, by making all medical pot patients effectively unemployable, that these patients simply collects a disability stipend rather than work productively. Well, at least the ridiculousness of their policies remains consistent. Ah well...

Dude Where's My Car? January 24, 2008 5:29 pm (Pacific time)

no bong hits before work? what is this world coming to?

c.d.h January 24, 2008 3:02 pm (Pacific time)

what kinda crap is that

[Return to Top]