Medical marijuana has
been in the news lately, from changes in the enforcement of
federal drug laws to the establishment of Oaksterdam
University, California's first cannabis college. With all of
the recent headlines regarding medical marijuana, employers
may have questions about whether they must accommodate their
employees' use of medical marijuana. However, California law
is clear that employers are not obligated to tolerate the
use of medical marijuana by their employees.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, also
known as the Compassionate Use Act, which removes criminal
penalties for possession and cultivation of marijuana for
medical purposes by patients who have a physician¹s
recommendation or approval. The Compassionate Use Act also
provides protection to doctors who recommend the use of
marijuana to their patients.
Despite these changes to state law, marijuana remains a
Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, meaning
that the federal government considers the drug to have "no
currently accepted medical use." Other Schedule I controlled
substances include LSD, ecstasy and heroin. Therefore, from
1996 to early 2009, the federal government continued to
enforce federal laws against marijuana sale and cultivation.
During this time, California citizens cultivating or selling
marijuana were periodically arrested, and federal agents
seized thousands of marijuana plants.
Early in his presidential campaign, Barack Obama made it
clear that his approach to medical marijuana would differ
from that of his predecessor, stating "I would not have the
Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana
users. It's not a good use of our resources." Accordingly,
in March 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that
the Justice Department would no longer raid marijuana
dispensaries that follow state laws. Then, on Oct. 19, 2009,
the Justice Department announced that the federal government
will not prosecute individuals using marijuana for medical
purposes, or dispensaries providing medical marijuana,
provided that they adhere to state laws.
Due in part to the federal government's new enforcement
guidelines, the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in
California has rapidly increased. For example, the city of
Los Angeles is now home to an estimated 1,000 dispensaries.
However, only 186 are formally registered with the city. In
response, the Los Angeles City Council recently decided to
cap the number of allowed dispensaries at 70, in addition to
those dispensaries which initially registered with the city.
Other cities were also caught off-guard by the proliferation
of medical marijuana dispensaries. For instance, San Diego
is now considering a permit process and zoning requirements
in order to regulate their already-existing dispensaries.
Other cities and counties have decided to take a
zero-tolerance approach to medical marijuana distribution.
Currently, eight counties and approximately 120 cities in
California have enacted outright bans on medical marijuana
dispensaries.
With the changes to federal law and the proliferation of
medical marijuana dispensaries, employers may be confused
about whether they must tolerate the use of medical
marijuana by employees. However, as discussed in the April
17, 2008 edition of The Personnel File, Ross v.
RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. has settled this
issue for California employers.
In this case, Gary Ross applied for and was offered a job
at RagingWire as a Lead Systems Administrator. Ross had
chronic back pain, and used medical marijuana on his
doctor's recommendation. Before starting work, RagingWire
sent Ross to take a drug test at a local medical clinic.
Ross gave the clinic a copy of his doctor's recommendation
for medical marijuana before taking the test. Three days
later, before the results of the test were known, Ross began
work at RagingWire. Later that week, the clinic informed
RagingWire that Ross tested positive for
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a chemical found in marijuana. A
few days later, RagingWire's chief executive officer
informed Ross that he was being fired due to his marijuana
use. Ross sued, alleging that RagingWire violated the Fair
Employment and Housing Act by failing to accommodate his
disability, and that it terminated him in violation of
public policy.
The Supreme Court rejected Ross' claims, finding that the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 does not give medical
marijuana users protection under the Fair Employment and
Housing Act. The Court's decision rests on three primary
factors. First, the Compassionate Use Act was written to
protect patients who possess or cultivate marijuana for
medical use, and to protect doctors who recommend marijuana.
The Court found that, in approving Proposition 215,
California voters had no intention to "speak so broadly" as
to address rights and obligations of employers and
employees. Second, the Court's opinion emphasized that
marijuana is still illegal under federal law, stating "[n]o
state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical
purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law,
even for medical users." Third, the Court noted the
potential for abuse of marijuana, and employers' legitimate
interest in avoiding employees who use it. The Court also
rejected Ross' argument that he was terminated in violation
of public policy, finding that there is no public policy in
the employment context protecting an employee's right to use
medical marijuana.
The federal government's changed enforcement priorities
and the proliferation of dispensaries may lead to an
increase in applicants or employees who use medical
marijuana. Nonetheless, employers can continue to rely on
the firm precedent of Ross v. RagingWire. Although
employers may choose to employ workers who use medical
marijuana, employers are not required to provide
accommodations to those who use medical marijuana, such as
excusing or waiving an employee or applicant's positive drug
screen.
Brianne Marriott is an attorney with the labor
and employment law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. She
works in the firm’s Fresno office and can be reached at
(559) 256-7800 or bmarriott@lcwlegal.com.