Calif Supreme Court: Workers can be fired for using med marijuana

AP via SFGate ^ | 1/24/8 | PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

[Hoof Hearted]

"It does say he flunked a company ordered drug test. In my experience, those are given randomly during the work day."

And cannabis will show positive in a 'random drug test' up to 45 days beyond exposure to pot.

So your point is....???

[Slapshot68]

So I guess one shouldn’t smoke pot when they know their employer tests for it.

I thought that was so clear.

[SmithL]

Nope! California ceded nothing. It was Robert’s Supreme Court that created this monster, in its medical marijuana ruling last year.

[robertpaulsen]

"So then... Legislating from the bench is OK when it goes the way you want?"

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is Congressional legislation.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) of the U.S. Constitution says, in effect, that federal law trumps state law. Should legislators in the states that allow marijuana be arrested and tried for sedition against the U.S. government?

[ari-freedom]

I’m an economic libertarian, not a drug and hooker libertarian.

Freedom to fire and intelligence are the basis of a strong, efficient market, not something that makes you a little stupid.

[robertpaulsen]

"authorizing him to legally use marijuana to treat a back injury"

A back injury? Marijuana? Come on. Taking three Alleve would have more analgesic effect.

[robertpaulsen]

"in direct violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States."

It would be a violation if there was no federal law. But the federal law has been in place now for 38 years, and the U.S. Constitution says that federal law trumps state law.

California state legislators have violated their oath of office in passing the medical marijuana laws and should be tried and jailed for sedition.

[gunservative]

While I’m likely a rare person on this board who agrees that medical marijuana should be legal, I don’t think somebody working (especially in a public capacity) should be using it at the same time.

[Eva]

I don’t know if you can make those assumptions from this article. First of all, the company had the right to fire the guy for being impaired, if that was the case, whether or not the marijuana was prescribed. Otherwise, drug testing would be useless, all the employees would need to do is get some phoney doctor to write a prescription.

No one has mentioned what the condition was that justified the prescription.

[Amendment10]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate on this one.

Will somebody please reference a clause in the federal Constitution that authorizes the federal government to impose such laws on the states, med marijuana in this example? Sec. 5 of the 14th A. comes to mind, but I haven't seen enough examples of this kind of legislation to really know.

Or is this just another example the federal government ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states to decide such things for themselves?

[fr_freak]

It would be a violation if there was no federal law. But the federal law has been in place now for 38 years, and the U.S. Constitution says that federal law trumps state law.

I can't imagine what basis you have for the idea that federal law trumps state law, except in areas where the federal Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power. Perhaps you could point out to me the section of the Constitution that explicitly grants the federal government the authority to regulate what citizens grow and ingest for use within state borders (yes, I am anticipating your "commerce clause" argument).

In the meantime, I would like to remind you of an often-forgotten member of the Bill of Rights, known as the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If Schwarzenegger were a Constitutionalist, and he had balls, he would have the federal agents who conduct these raids arrested and hauled off to jail.

[fr_freak]

I don’t know if you can make those assumptions from this article. First of all, the company had the right to fire the guy for being impaired, if that was the case, whether or not the marijuana was prescribed. Otherwise, drug testing would be useless, all the employees would need to do is get some phoney doctor to write a prescription.

No one has mentioned what the condition was that justified the prescription.

Yes, as I mentined in my earlier post, I think an employer should have the right to fire anyone, anytime. If the employer doesn't like his employees getting high in their off time, he should be able to fire them. However, the court did not appear to make its decision based on that reasoning. Instead, it based its decision on the concept that the federal prosecution of marijuana possession/sale/cultivation was legitimate, and therefore the employer could fire the employee based on that illegality, even though state law says it is not illegal.

Oh, and the article states that the guy was using marijuana to help back pain from an injury he suffered while in the AirForce.

[BlazingArizona]

The SCOCA got this one right.

But for the wrong reason. This should have been an employer rights decision: that an employer has the right to insist that his workers be drug free. Without passing judgment on the "medical" reason for sparking up, it is an established fact that being baked affects mental faculties that an employer might deem vital.

But no: the Court ruled that the marijuana being against federal law means the employer has to assume state liability for its use by employees. It should have treated these as separate issues. And because this case covered off-job usage, the employer would not have been liable under federal law anyway.

[Redcloak]

State courts (allegedly) judge according State law; not Federal law. Thus the California Supreme Court should have judged this per California law; not Federal law. Under California law, medical marijuana is legal. The proper place for a ruling like this is not a California court, but a Federal one.

BTW: The Supremacy Clause doesn't give Congress carte blanche to ride roughshod over the States. That pesky Bill of Rights and its 10th Amendment gets in the way.

[TChris]

So then... Legislating from the bench is OK when it goes the way you want?

Legislating what, exactly?

An employer has the right to fire it's employees. If the company has a "no marijuana" policy, it can enforce that. It doesn't need any legislation of any kind to do so.

[TChris]

I think it is the correct outcome, but for the wrong reason. An employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever reason they want.

I agree completely.

[TChris]

But for the wrong reason. This should have been an employer rights decision: that an employer has the right to insist that his workers be drug free.

Agreed.

[Redcloak]

Under California law, medical marijuana is legal. This particular law was passed by the people themselves. The Court has decided that the peoples’ votes don’t count and they’ve taken it upon themselves to re-write California law.

There are people here cheering because they don’t like marijuana, don’t like marijuana users, or both. Those same people would, with one exception that I can think of, be screaming for blood if a state court decided to ban firearms on its own.

[TChris]

There are people here cheering because they don’t like marijuana, don’t like marijuana users, or both. Those same people would, with one exception that I can think of, be screaming for blood if a state court decided to ban firearms on its own.

My contention is that an employer has the right to fire its employees, for what ever reason it sees fit.

String bikinis are legal, but I would think that a law firm would be likely to fire a trial attorney who showed up for court in one.

Giving political speeches is legal, but an assembly line worker who insisted on giving hour-long speeches in the lobby instead of working his shift would probably be fired.

So, "legal" is really beside the point when it comes to employment. The employer gets to set rules for his employees, and he can fire you if you don't keep them.

[Redcloak]

I agree that “at will” should mean “at will” but that’s not what the court is saying here. They legislated from the bench and negated California law. The end effect of the ruling is correct, but a correct ruling made through incorrect reasoning is still incorrect.