As a child of the 70’s myself, and having been born and raised in California, I just couldn’t resist sharing the following employment law ruling in a case involving a California employee whose doctor recommended his use of marijuana to treat chronic pain. The employee filed a disability discrimination claim against his employer for firing him after testing positive for drug consumption. I have to admit I have mixed feelings on the case. I feel for the employee, and his painful condition, but I support the employer for enforcing a legitimate zero tolerance drug policy.

The plaintiff in Gary Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc. claimed that his former employer violated California’s anti-discrimination law when the employer fired him rather than make accommodations for a disability.

At issue in the case was whether California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 would override an employer’s policy against drug use, court records show. The 1996 act approved by voters provides a criminal defense in cases where a doctor recommends marijuana use for medical purposes.

But nothing in the act “suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees,” justices stated in the 5-2 decision. The state high court therefore upheld lower court rulings that found the plaintiff could not use the act as an argument to pursue a disability discrimination lawsuit against his employer.

Ross did not state what accommodation he sought, so the court justices inferred he desired that the employer waive its drug policy to allow his use of marijuana at home, the opinion states.

Ross suffers from back strain, muscle spasms and chronic pain from an injury suffered while serving in the Air Force. The injury qualifies him as a “qualified individual” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, court records state.

But he was terminated from his job after he failed a drug test shortly after he was hired in 2001 as a lead system operator for Ragingwire Telecommunications.

The ruling by the California Supreme Court was a split decision. The court’s minority found that the majority’s decision lacked compassion for holding that an employer may fire an ailing employee when their medical marijuana use does not impair their job performance or their employer’s interests.

Source: Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance