Can Employers Legally Fire You for Medical Marijuana Use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Medical Treatment
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The California Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision that employers can legally terminate employees for medicinal marijuana use, as federal law classifies marijuana as illegal. This ruling stems from the case of Gary Ross, who was fired by Ragingwire Telecommunications Inc. for off-duty marijuana use prescribed for medical purposes. The court concluded that Ross lacked a valid claim under California's public policy, emphasizing the conflict between state and federal laws regarding marijuana use.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of California employment law
  • Knowledge of federal drug regulations
  • Familiarity with medicinal marijuana legislation
  • Awareness of workplace drug testing policies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research California's public policy exceptions in employment law
  • Examine federal vs. state law conflicts regarding drug use
  • Investigate workplace drug testing best practices
  • Explore the implications of medicinal marijuana laws on employment rights
USEFUL FOR

Human resources professionals, legal advisors, and employees navigating workplace drug policies, particularly in states with medicinal marijuana laws.

  • #61
drankin said:
I think a company should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Regardless of reason.

So you feel companies should be allowed to have racist hiring practices?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
DeadWolfe said:
So you feel companies should be allowed to have racist hiring practices?
'Allowed' by who? Customers? Employees? State? Feds?
 
  • #63
DeadWolfe said:
So you feel companies should be allowed to have racist hiring practices?

As much as we'd like to legislate against racism, laws will not stop racism. If anything, they fuel racism by causing a lot of racial tension. If you're required to hire X number of black people and Y number of women, how much credibility will a black or female employee have? "Oh you got this job because you're black." That may not be the case, but realistically it could be true. The last thing in the world we want is for racists to actually have real world examples of ethnic minorities getting employed welfare by being hired simply because they're a certain color. We all hate the person who doesn't get fired even though they suck, regardless of race, but don't put specific races into that role (affirmative action) then act surprised when racism gets stronger and stronger.

Likewise, we can't realistically legislate against firing for drug use. Example: I find an employee smoking crack. I'm not going to say he's fired for smoking crack, I'll say he was fired because of his performance. What is the government going to say? That I should prove his performance was bad?
If you (anybody) have ever had a job in your entire life, you would know performance is the 'reason' for firing people. You were a jerk? Performance. You showed up late? Performance. You smelled really bad? Performance. You're black and it interferes with the company's weekly KKK meeting? Performance. Your hardcore christianity interfered with the boss' militant atheism? Performance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K