Legal

Off-the-Job Medical Marijuana Use Does Not Bar Firing

By Staff Report

Jun. 14, 2011

Washington state’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act does not prohibit employers from firing workers for using pot off the job, the state’s Supreme Court has ruled.


The medical marijuana law, adopted by Washington state voters in 1998, does not “provide a private cause of action for discharge of an employee who uses medical marijuana,” nor does “MUMA create a clear public policy that would support a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of such a policy,” the court ruled last week in Jane Roe vs. TeleTech Customer Care Management L.L.C.


The ruling stemmed from the case of a woman who suffered from migraines that caused chronic pain, nausea, blurred vision and sensitivity to light, according to court documents. She said conventional medications did not provide relief.


In June 2006, a doctor provided her a document authorizing marijuana possession for medical purposes, and about four months later TeleTech offered her a customer service job contingent on the results of a drug screening test.


The employer learned of her drug test results about the same time the plaintiff began training for the job and terminated her. The company’s drug-use policy does not make an exception for medical marijuana use, court records show.


She sued in 2007 under the pseudonym of Jane Roe for wrongful termination, alleging the employer violated MUMA and public policy.


But a trial court and a state appellate court granted TeleTech’s motion for summary judgment and found that MUMA provides a defense only against criminal prosecution and does not address civil actions.


On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the woman argued that because the medical marijuana law explicitly does not require employers to accommodate pot use “in any place of employment,” it implicitly requires accommodation for use outside the workplace.


But eight justices agreed with lower courts and found that MUMA broadly protects a personal decision to use medical marijuana, but does not address impediments to doing so, such as an employer’s drug policy.


One justice dissented, arguing that voters intended to protect such patients who prescribed marijuana for medical purposes.


Courts in other states, such as California and Oregon, also have ruled that employers do not have to accommodate medical marijuana use.  


Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

What’s New at Workforce.com?

blog workforce

Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Compliance

Minimum Wage by State in 2023 – All You Need to Know

Summary Twenty-three states and D.C. raised their minimum wage rates in 2023, effective January 1.  Thr...

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

workforce blog

Legal

New Labor Laws Taking Effect in 2023

The new year is fast approaching, and with its arrival comes a host of new labor laws that will impact ...

labor laws, minimum wage, wage and hour law

workforce blog

Legal

Wage and Hour Laws in 2022: What Employers Need to Know

Whether a mom-and-pop shop with a handful of employees or a large corporation staffing thousands, compl...

compliance, wage and hour law