california marijuana law

The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employer does not discriminate against an employee on the basis of disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by refusing to order an employee of the medical use of marijuana.

In the case decided by the Court, the former employees suffering from strain and muscle spasms in the back as a result of injuries he sustained while in the United States Air Force. Because of his condition, the Court finds that the plaintiff in the case was a qualified person with a disability under the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Sometime after the approval by voters of Proposition 215, referred to as "compassionate use" Act, which governs the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the former employees began to use marijuana to alleviate his pain, on his doctor's recommendation.

Thereafter, the employer offered the applicant a job. The employer is obliged to the plaintiff a drug test. Before the test, applicants, the hospital, the administration of the test a copy of his doctor's recommendation for the use of marijuana. The hospital informed him that he was positive for marijuana use. At this point, the employer suspended him. The plaintiff then about his new employer of his doctor permission to use marijuana to cope with his pain. However, the employer terminated the employee because he used marijuana.

In his plea, the former employees claimed that the employer against the Fair Employment and Housing Act by discharging him because of his disability and not to make reasonable accommodation for his disability. Plaintiffs also alleged that the employer terminated his employment was wrong, a violation of public policy.

The California Supreme Court reasoned that the "compassionate use" marijuana law does not give the same status as any legal drugs. No state could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug is still against federal law. The "compassionate use" law merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically state statutes. Nothing in the text or the history of the "compassionate use" law proposed to the voters that the measure would affect the rights and obligations of employers and workers. The Supreme Court concluded that the Fair Employment and Housing Act, not the employer, to the use of illegal drugs.

The California Supreme Court recognized that it is lawful for an employer to condition an offer of employment on the results of a medical examination, and that such an examination may also be drug testing. The employer may deny employment to persons who are positive for illegal drugs. The "compassionate use" marijuana law does not eliminate the potential for abuse or the employer's legitimate interest in whether an employee uses the drug. Marijuana is illegal under federal law because of its high potential for abuse, his lack of current medical use in treatment in the United States, and the lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The "compassionate use" law is not the employers who use marijuana to their employees.

Russell J. Thomas, Jr.
Attorney at Law
THOMAS & ASSOCIATES
2172 Dupont Drive, Suite 203
Irvine, California 92612;
Tel: (949) 752-0101
Fax: (949) 257-4756
E-mail: rthomas@rjtlawfirm.com
Web: http://www.rjtlawfirm.com

J.D., Harvard Law School, 1967

Specializing in employment law and litigation;
Offices in Southern California (Los Angeles and Orange County)