Judge: Wal-Mart can fire man for med marijuana use

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Michigan law legalizing medical marijuana doesn't stop private businesses from firing people for drug use, a federal judge said Friday in dismissing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker said the law, approved by voters in 2008, bars authorities from prosecuting people for marijuana use but doesn't tell private employers what to do.

Joseph Casias, 30, was an inventory-control manager at a Walmart in Battle Creek, 50 miles south of Lansing, until he tested positive for marijuana in 2009. He has a medical-marijuana card and smokes pot to alleviate symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer.

Under Casias' theory of the case, "no private employer in Michigan could take any action against an employee based on an employee's use of medical marijuana," Jonker said. "This would create a new protected employee class in Michigan and mark a radical departure from the general rule of at-will employment."

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014199514_apusmedicalmarijuanawalmart.html

[indepat]

1. Those wholly lacking human compassion, empathy, understanding, and reason are typically

evil incarnate imho. :patriot:

[Lucian]

2. Who are they going to fire next...

people who are prescribe Vicodin to alleviate pain? The guy had a legitimate medical use for MJ, but apparently that's not good enough.

:eyes: :wtf:

[truthisfreedom]

3. Who knows why they really want to get rid of him. They may just be using this as an excuse

for firing him for a reason that they can't justify.

[knitter4democracy]

8. They can't justify it--he'd gotten promotions and was a model employee.

This really wasn't about the pot, or so many of us here in Battle Creek feel. We were wondering in class the other day if he were on Walmart's health insurance (he's been named employee of the month, etc.) and that this was really about that.

[Journeyman]

16. They don't need to justify it - that's the hell of "at-will" employment. . .

until we discard that relic of the industrial age, no one without a contract has any job security.

[nosmokes]

4. so your boss is in charge of your medical treatment now...

capitalism can kiss my ass.

[sakabatou]

5. I'm betting that there's an appeal

[kdtroxel]

6. Any Bets?

Any bets they would not have fired this individual if he was old and had the potential payout on a dead peasant policy?

[demigoddess]

7. stupid judge, stupid walmart.

legalize marijuana.

[knitter4democracy]

9. Nah, it's the ruling we expected.

The real issue now is to get it on the books here in Michigan that employees cannot be discriminated against for legal drug use of any kind.

[sylveste]

15. don't think even that would matter

there is thread on here about companies, namely hospitals, firing and or not hiring people for failing nicotine tests. hell half the poeple in the thread think it's a great idea because the don't like smoking.

[sam sarrha]

10. Dominionist Judge.. should be a non-Dominionist adherance requirement for all gov officers because

to believe in the tenents of Dominionism is incompatable with any oath of office in a Democracy.

in Dominionism all people are not created equal. only the rich and powerful are favored by god so it is a sin to tax them, the poor are being punished by god so it is a sin to help them.

trickle down echonomics is a Dominionism belief.. and it is only gods blessings that trickle down. because the poor have recognized gods true plan and have submitted their lives to make them richer.

i shit you not.. this is true.. read http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297475635&sr=8-1

"snip...Sharlet accepts on a whim an invitation to stay at Ivenwald. He's shocked to find himself in the stronghold of a widespread "invisible" network, organized into cells much like Ivenwald, and populated by elite, politically ambitious fundamentalists; Sharlet is present when a leader tells a dozen men living there, "You guys are here to learn how to rule the world." As it turns out, the Family was established in 1935 to oppose FDR's New Deal and the spread of trade unions; since then, it has organized well-attended weekly prayer meetings for members of Congress and annual National Prayer Breakfasts attended by every president since Eisenhower..snip"

http://www.amazon.com/Street-Fundamentalist-Threat-American-Democracy/dp/0316091073/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297475635&sr=8-3

[demigoddess]

11. I just have to add a little rant.

I imagine that wal-mart might not fire a person for legal infractions, but the legal use of marijuana they can and will fire someone for.

Police have kicked and hit people in a manner that if you or I did it we would be run in immediately to jail, whereas a cop kicking someone in the head while prone on the sidewalk and handcuffed behind their back and they get to only consider disciplinary action.

Salvation Army has asked for the right not to hire someone because they are gay. I would like to ask the Salvation Army if they refuse to hire someone who has stolen and served time for it, murdered and served time for it, lied, or committed adultery. All of those sins are mentioned in the Ten Commandments whereas homosexuality is not.

I just happen to think that there are a lot of people who look for the speck in someone else's eye while having a board in their own. This judge should be ashamed of his ruling.

[RKP5637]

13. Well said! n/t

[RKP5637]

12. Yet another WTF moment. n/t

[zonkers]

14. Walmart will probably be selling marijuana in ten years.

[jwirr]

17. Medical marijuana implies an illness. I wonder if the Disabilities

Act could be used to apply to jobs?

[Maraya1969]

18. What about discrimination because of his illness? Not allowed and you can't

prove that Wal-Mart is not bagging him because he could be a monetary burden with disability benefits coming up possibly.

Or if he is already on disability you can't fire him - The Americans with Disabilities act

[AETH]

19. I think the judge is wrong on the law

Under the Michigan MMJ law:


(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or
MCL 333.26428(c)(1).

And

(c) Nothing in this act shall be construed to require:

(2) An employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.
MCL 333.26467(c)(2):


And,

(1) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a
registry identification card shall not be subject to . . .disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with the act, if the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the following: <2.5 ounces for medical use>.
Michigan Administrative Rule 333.127

So, as I read it, the employer is not required to allow the employee to smoke pot while at work or to allow the employee to work under the influence of pot. But as long as the employee is not getting high at work or trying to work while high, he can't be disciplined just for being a medical marijuana patient and he can't be disciplined for possessing up to 2.5 oz. of marijuana while at work.

But the judge said that the word "business" modifies the word "licensing board." It cannot stand alone to say that a business cannot discipline a medical marijuana patient. See opinion at 14-17. The court's full opinion may be found here http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Casias.pdf

When a statute has two separate, equally valid meanings, that statute is ambiguous. See Mayor of City of Lansing v. Michigan Public Service Com'n, 470 Mich. 154, 166; 680 N.W.2d 840, 847 (2004). If the statute is ambiguous, "an appellate judge . . . substitute 'rules of policy'. . . ." Id. at 164; 680 NW2d at 846. (citations omitted). A state's public policy may be found in its statutes. See Suchodolski v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692, 695-96; 316 N.W.2d 710, 711-12 (1982). Applying the policy found in Michigan's medical marijuana statute, the court should have adopted the reading of the statute that allows business to stand alone. In addition, my search of the Michigan statutes does not reveal any entity named a "business board."

[Nossida]

20. Well of course

You expect a Judge to rule in favor of the People?

[sarcasmo]

21. Kick, legalize it and stop all this bullshit.