Stoney Girl
New Member
Please send LTE's opposing this editorial:
How long should it take to fire a sheriff’s deputy whose marijuana use
shows disrespect for the law?
Try about nine years. It took Washington County and the Department of
Public Safety Standards and Training that long to prevail in the courts.
The Oregon Supreme Court made a decision this week in the case of Paul
Cuff, a county corrections officer who repeatedly bought and smoked
marijuana and expected to keep his job.
In the case, Cuff had a job driving a bus of inmates into and out of
the county. He was tested in a routine screening for drug use in
January 1999. The test came up positive for marijuana. Cuff’s
superiors confronted him, and he initially denied using pot.
Cuff eventually admitted to using the drug off duty, nearly every day
for a month before the test. Washington County fired him in March 1999.
Cuff put up a fight. An arbitrator said his union contract required
the county to offer counseling first. The county refused to rehire
Cuff. The Employee Relations Board said Cuff must be reinstated. And
in 2003, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed. The county reinstated Cuff.
The Legislature made some changes to the law in 1999 that addressed
issues like Cuff’s. Basically, a new law said law enforcement officers
must be of “good moral fitness.” The Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training came up with rules to implement that law. The
rules say law enforcement officers can’t commit acts that would cause
a reasonable person to doubt their honesty, fairness, respect for the
rights of others, or for the laws of the state or nation.
In 2004, based on that provision, the Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training told Cuff that it was going to revoke his
certification to work as a corrections officer. The DPSST did it. Cuff
fought it, disputing whether the rules should be retroactive. He lost
in the Court of Appeals and in the Oregon Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Oregon Supreme Court said it was difficult to
think of any way to evaluate a person’s moral fitness without
considering past conduct. And Cuff himself had admitted that his
conduct did not meet minimum fitness standards at the time it occurred.
Cuff’s case is curious not only because it took so long to resolve
what seems to be a simple matter. It’s interesting, too, because
Oregon employers face a similar lack of clarity on legal and ethical
issues surrounding the use of medical marijuana. The law is unclear
about whether employers can fire or refuse to hire users.
We doubt that when Oregonians approved the medical use of marijuana,
they wanted people on pot operating heavy machinery or making critical
safety or financial decisions. Oregon lawmakers should pass
legislation to allow businesses to establish and enforce drug-free
workplaces.
How long should it take to fire a sheriff’s deputy whose marijuana use
shows disrespect for the law?
Try about nine years. It took Washington County and the Department of
Public Safety Standards and Training that long to prevail in the courts.
The Oregon Supreme Court made a decision this week in the case of Paul
Cuff, a county corrections officer who repeatedly bought and smoked
marijuana and expected to keep his job.
In the case, Cuff had a job driving a bus of inmates into and out of
the county. He was tested in a routine screening for drug use in
January 1999. The test came up positive for marijuana. Cuff’s
superiors confronted him, and he initially denied using pot.
Cuff eventually admitted to using the drug off duty, nearly every day
for a month before the test. Washington County fired him in March 1999.
Cuff put up a fight. An arbitrator said his union contract required
the county to offer counseling first. The county refused to rehire
Cuff. The Employee Relations Board said Cuff must be reinstated. And
in 2003, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed. The county reinstated Cuff.
The Legislature made some changes to the law in 1999 that addressed
issues like Cuff’s. Basically, a new law said law enforcement officers
must be of “good moral fitness.” The Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training came up with rules to implement that law. The
rules say law enforcement officers can’t commit acts that would cause
a reasonable person to doubt their honesty, fairness, respect for the
rights of others, or for the laws of the state or nation.
In 2004, based on that provision, the Department of Public Safety
Standards and Training told Cuff that it was going to revoke his
certification to work as a corrections officer. The DPSST did it. Cuff
fought it, disputing whether the rules should be retroactive. He lost
in the Court of Appeals and in the Oregon Supreme Court.
In its opinion, the Oregon Supreme Court said it was difficult to
think of any way to evaluate a person’s moral fitness without
considering past conduct. And Cuff himself had admitted that his
conduct did not meet minimum fitness standards at the time it occurred.
Cuff’s case is curious not only because it took so long to resolve
what seems to be a simple matter. It’s interesting, too, because
Oregon employers face a similar lack of clarity on legal and ethical
issues surrounding the use of medical marijuana. The law is unclear
about whether employers can fire or refuse to hire users.
We doubt that when Oregonians approved the medical use of marijuana,
they wanted people on pot operating heavy machinery or making critical
safety or financial decisions. Oregon lawmakers should pass
legislation to allow businesses to establish and enforce drug-free
workplaces.
