California Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Employers' Obligations to Employees Who Use Medical Marijuana
On November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court heard long-awaited arguments in the closely watched "medical marijuana" case of Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. Gary Ross, a network administrator, was terminated eight days into his employment after testing positive for marijuana. Ross challenged the termination because he had a doctor's recommendation that he use marijuana to relieve chronic back pain. Ross has alleged that because his use of marijuana was lawful under California's Compassionate Use law, his employer was obligated under state law to accommodate his disability by permitting him to use marijuana as recommended by his physician. Ross’s attorneys also argued that his discharge violated California's public policy, including California’s constitutionally created right to privacy.
Marijuana use is illegal under federal law. California has effectively “decriminalized” marijuana use by adopting the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The Act allows individuals to purchase, possess, cultivate, and use small quantities of marijuana for medicinal purposes without fear of prosecution by state officials. Federal officials may prosecute those who use marijuana pursuant to the state law, but as a practical matter, enforcement efforts are much more likely to be focused on cultivation and distribution networks. The statutory language makes it clear that employees may not possess or use marijuana at work – leading Ross’s attorneys to argue that by implication, the law intended that employees be permitted to use the drug outside of work. Continue Reading...
