[fr_freak]

The SCOCA got this one right.

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. However, this court seems to be of the opinion that there are restrictions on an empoyer's right to fire employees at will (which has been the prevailing opinion in CA for some time), but that the federal ban on marijuana is a sufficient justification for firing the employee.

In effect, the California Supreme Court appears to have just ceded the entire authority of the State of California over to the federal government, in direct violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ofthe United States. I can't imagine a more irresponsible position for a state court to take than to undermine its own sovereign government.

[SmithL]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Smogger]

However, this court seems to be of the opinion that there are restrictions on an empoyer's right to fire employees at will.

You can fire someone at will in California, but you may be exposing yourself to a wrongful termination suit or an EEOC investigation if you violate a state or Federal statute.

You can't fire someone because they're black. You can't fire someone because they reported some illegality that you performed to the proper authorities, etc.

[monkeyshine]

Right. Actually California is an “at will” employment state - so yes, assuming there was no contract or other policies in place they could fire him for no reason at all.

Perhaps there was a contract that the company wanted to get out of, hence, the court battle.