Medical Marijuana and Workers' Rights

[Medical Marijuana]

California citizens with a doctor's note are permitted to grow and possess marijuana, thanks to the state's 1996 compassionate use law. Medical cannabis dispensaries are licensed and even pay sales tax. So committed is the Bay Area to marijuana rights, StoptheDrugWar.org reported, that after some San Francisco dispensaries were found inadvertently to be "using the incorrect equivalent conversion between grams and ounces," the health department reminded operators to give the people "what they pay for." Last year, San Francisco also passed an ordinance that makes marijuana offenders the "lowest law enforcement priority."

Even for medical users, however, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and private employers in California are not required to be tolerant. Because of "well-documented problems" of absenteeism, low productivity, and physical injury, employers exercise their legal right to test workers and, if results are positive for illegal substances, to deny them employment.

Veteran Gary Ross was badly injured while serving in the U.S. Air Force and became eligible for government disability benefits. He suffers chronic pain, which is eased by physician-recommended marijuana treatment. In 2001, Sacramento-based RagingWire Telecommunications hired Ross, but when his pre-employment drug test came back positive for THC, the company quickly fired him. Ross sued, arguing that he was not consuming marijuana on the job and that state fair-employment laws required "reasonable accommodation" for his disability. Last week, the California Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the compassionate use law does not "require employers to accommodate marijuana" (see excerpts of the court's affirmation below and on the following five pages).

[HeadMed]

We're working on it... good thing to, studying form my last wiz-quiz damn near killed me.


Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard

Article Launched: 02/26/2008 0156 AM PST


If Eureka Assemblywoman Patty Berg has her way, California employers won't be able to fire employees based on their use of medical marijuana.

Assembly Bill 2279, introduced to the assembly last week by Assemblyman Mark Leno and co-authored by Berg, aims to prohibit employers from letting go of employees for using medical marijuana away from the workplace in compliance with state law. The bill is a direct response to a recent California Supreme Court ruling, and is drawing praise from some local attorneys.

The Supreme Court voted last month to uphold a Sacramento telecommunications company's firing of Gary Ross, who flunked a company-ordered drug test, but had a medical marijuana card authorizing him to legally use marijuana to treat a back injury sustained while serving in the Air Force.

The company, Ragingwire Inc., successfully argued it rightfully fired Ross because marijuana is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

”No state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law,” Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the 5-2 majority.

The decision drew the ire of some local attorneys, and Leno, who vowed to introduce a bill to address the issue.

”AB 2279 is merely an affirmation of the intent of the voters and the Legislature that medical marijuana patients need not be unemployed to benefit from their medicine,” Leno said in a news release last week.

Berg had a similar take, saying the bill simply clarifies existing law, as laid out in Proposition 215 -- The Compassionate Use Act passed by voters in 1996 -- and Senate Bill 420, which was signed into law in 2003.

”I don't think Californians intended for workers to be unfairly targeted for medical marijuana use,” Berg said in a statement e-mailed to the Times-Standard. “AB 2279 clarifies the law, and I support that.”

While prohibiting companies from firing workers for using medical marijuana away from work, the bill would leave intact existing state laws that prohibit medical marijuana consumption at the workplace.

Eureka attorney Neal Sanders, who specializes in medical marijuana cases, said the bill would essentially put medical marijuana patients on the same footing they were on before last month's court decision.

”It's an issue that needs to be taken care of legislatively,” Sanders said. “It's gone as far as it can with the courts, and the courts don't seem to be sympathetic.”

Local attorney Greg Allen, who has experience handling marijuana cases, described the court's decision as a “complete travesty,” but commended the Legislature for taking up the issue.

Allen said the Supreme Court ruling failed to uphold California law. He said a section of the state constitution requires public agencies to follow state law, even if it conflicts with federal law. In this case, Allen said, the court didn't rule that Proposition 215 or SB 420 were unconstitutional, it just shrugged aside their intent in favor of federal law.

”It's obvious that the intent of these was not to make users of medical cannabis unemployed or unemployable,” Allen said.

Sanders had a similar take, saying he doesn't see what federal law has to do with the California case.

”I don't see the distinction,” Sanders said. “Yes, it's illegal under federal law, but how does that impact an employee here in California, that works here in California, that got a prescription under California state law?”

In Ross' case, Ragingwire said it fired him because, among other reasons, the company feared it could be the target of a federal raid.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. joined Ragingwire's case, arguing that companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to use marijuana, even if that usage were for medical purposes and occurred outside of the workplace.

Allen said the way the whole issue has played out through the courts, and now the state Legislature, shows the ongoing need for the system of checks and balances that is in place.

The ball, Allen said, is now in the legislators' court.

”I think the Legislature is absolutely doing the right thing,” Allen said. “I think that medical cannabis patients all over the state should be grateful to Ms. Berg and the other legislators.”