Smoke a Joint, Lose a Job: CA Supreme Court Rules Employers Can Fire Workers for Medical Marijuana Use

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a positive drug test arising from medical marijuana use can be grounds for termination of employment.

The LA Times reported on Jan. 25, 2008 ("Workers Can Be Fired For Using Medical Pot Off Duty, Court Rules") that "The California Supreme Court weakened the effect of the state's beleaguered medical marijuana law, ruling Thursday that employers may fire workers for using physician-recommended marijuana while off duty, even if it did not hurt their job performance. Supporters of medical marijuana immediately criticized the court's 5-2 ruling, saying it undermined the 1996 law, which prohibits the state from criminalizing the medical use of the drug. Hundreds of medical marijuana users have complained that they have been fired, threatened with termination or not hired by California companies because of their drug use, according to one advocacy group. In siding with employers, the California Supreme Court said the Compassionate Use Act passed by voters and later amended by the Legislature imposed no requirements on employers."

According to the Times, "The court majority upheld the firing of Gary Ross, an Air Force veteran whose doctor recommended marijuana for chronic back pain stemming from an injury in the military and whose disability qualified him for government benefits. Ross, 45, was hired by RagingWire Telecommunications Inc. in 2001 as a systems engineer. Before taking a required drug test, Ross provided a copy of his physician's recommendation for marijuana. The company fired him a week after he started the job because his test revealed that he had used marijuana. Ross sued the company on the grounds that it failed to accommodate his disability as required under a state anti-discrimination law. He contended that he had worked without any problems at other jobs in the same field since becoming a medical marijuana user. Lower courts, however, sided with the employer."

The Times noted that "Attorney Robert M. Pattison, who represented RagingWire Telecommunications, a Sacramento data center, said the ruling resolved questions that have troubled employers about the use of medical marijuana and did "not at all" eviscerate the marijuana law. 'In fact, the court makes it clear that the point here is the medical marijuana law doesn't address employment,' Pattison said."

Here's a link to the CA Supreme Court's decision in this case.

California Considering Early Release of 22,000 Prison Inmates

The state of California is considering a plan by that state's governor to ease prison overcrowding through the early release of more than 22,000 inmates.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Jan. 12, 2008 ("22,000 Prisoners Could be Set Free Early to Save Millions") that "Less than six months ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised that there was no way any California convict was going to get a break on his prison term. 'I am here to tell you that the early release of inmates is totally unacceptable,' the governor said July 28. 'They should only be let out when they have served their sentences and are ready to return to society. Period.' But with the state facing a $14.5 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months, Schwarzenegger on Thursday announced that more than 22,000 nonviolent offenders will be released as much as 20 months early over the next year and a half in an effort to slash $260 million from the Department of Corrections budget. About half the inmates eligible for the early release program are expected to be drug offenders, with most of the rest in custody for property crimes like forgery, auto burglary and car theft, corrections officials say."

According to the Chronicle, "The state expects to save another $110 million by placing the former inmates on 'summary parole,' which means they won't have to meet with parole officers and can't be returned to prison for a parole violation. A panel of federal judges, upset about overcrowding in the state prison system, is ready to slap a cap on the prison population, the governor said, just as the state's fiscal crisis is forcing 10 percent, across-the-board cuts in state spending."

The Chronicle noted that "The new parole rules for such nonviolent offenders also mean they can't be quickly returned to prison violating parole. If police discover someone on summary parole with narcotics, for example, they can't simply ask a judge to send him to prison. They will have to file new charges and put the parolee on trial, a long and often expensive proposition. If Schwarzenegger gets his way, plenty of ex-convicts are going to be back on the street and local officials are worried about what that will mean. Even nonviolent offenders often return to their communities with drug problems, no jobs and no place to stay, said Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson."