California Supreme Court to Determine Whether Medical Marijuana Users Have Job Protection

April 4, 2006 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which decriminalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under a physician’s recommendation. The Act specifically prohibits the criminal prosecution of an individual for possession or use of medical marijuana, and the stated intent of the Act is to afford individuals with disabilities and illnesses the ability to use marijuana, if needed, without sanction or penalty.

In a case of first impression decided this past summer, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., the California Court of Appeal considered whether a medical marijuana user is also protected on the job.

In Ross, the plaintiff was offered a job by Ragingwire. As part of the job offer, he had to submit to a preemployment drug test. Ross, who properly utilized marijuana for medicinal purposes, tested positive for marijuana.

Ross provided Ragingwire with a copy of his doctor’s recommendation and explained to them that his use was for his disability. Nevertheless, Ragingwire fired him because of the positive test, even though there was no evidence that his off-duty marijuana use in any way impaired his ability to perform his job.

The Court upheld the firing and found that the protections of the Compassionate Use Act, the intent of the voters, and California’s disability laws did not afford an individual with a disability who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes job protection for that use. The Court of Appeal relied almost exclusively on the illegal status of marijuana (even for medicinal purposes) under federal law and the fact that the Act did not specifically state it applied to employment situations.

Given the importance of the issues involved, the California Supreme Court has granted review of the Court’s decision and will hear the case to decide if California employment law protects such an individual from termination. Beeson, Tayer & Bodine has cocounseled with the attorneys for the plaintiff in this matter to assist in the Supreme Court appeal. Stay tuned for further developments.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.