Joseph Casias, a 30-year-old Wal-Mart store manager and the 2008 Associate of the Year at the Battle Creek, Mich., store, alleges he was fired after testing positive for marijuana even though he was legally registered to use the drug under Michigan's medical marijuana law.
Similar suits have been filed in California, Montana, Oregon and Washington state. So far, the courts have sided with employers, holding that they don't have to accommodate medical marijuana users because pot is still illegal under federal law and its use could pose a safety risk.
In a case titled Emerald Steel Fabricators v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in April that an employer can fire a worker for using medical marijuana even if that worker is legally registered to use pot under state law. Also in April, the Washington Supreme Court agreed to review Jane Doe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management, in which an appeals court held that a person can use the state medical marijuana law as a defense in a criminal case but not an employment one.
In Michigan, however, the medical marijuana statute has language designed to protect those who use pot for health reasons from adverse employment actions. Scott Michelman, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is handling the suit along with St. Joseph, Mich., practitioner Daniel Grow, said that Michigan's statute specifically states that patients who use medicinal marijuana "may not be subject to discipline by any business."
There is no such language in the laws in states such as California and Oregon. "We think there's a very solid basis to distinguish those cases [from the Michigan case]," Michelman said.
He said Casias did not smoke at work or come to work under the influence, but rather used marijuana "off-hours to manage very severe pain associated with his cancer." Nonetheless, according to Michelman, Wal-Mart has a no-drug policy in the workplace and did not recognize Casias' state marijuana card when it fired him.
Wal-Mart released a statement on Tuesday: "We are sympathetic to Mr. Casias' condition but, like other companies, we have to consider the overall safety of our customers and associates, including Mr. Casias, when making a difficult decision like this. In this case, the doctor-prescribed treatment was not the relevant issue. The issue is about the ability of our associates to do their jobs safely."
Wal-Mart also seemed to make a small plea for clearer standards: "As more states allow this treatment, employers are left without any guidelines except the federal standard. In these cases, until further guidance is available, we will always default to what we believe is the safest environment for our associates and customers."
Source: Law.com
Posts
