Medical Marijuana Use Upheld

by Ted Olsen

Due to citizen ballot initiatives in many states—including Colorado—legal rights and protections have been extended to persons who use marijuana for medical reasons. See Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, Section 14. For the most part, Colorado employers have not changed their drug testing policies in reaction to this initiative, which passed in 2000. Nor have employers changed their rules against employee use of illegal drugs, including marijuana. In general, employers have believed that the Colorado constitutional amendment simply did not provide people with employment-related rights. One basis for this belief was the statement in the Constitutional amendment, "Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place." Id., § 10(b).

On January 24, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a decision giving further comfort to employers. Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 920, 174 P.3d 200 (2008).

In RagingWire, the Court decided that an employer that discharges a worker for using medical marijuana (under a system very similar to Colorado's) is not liable under the California employment discrimination law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) or under California state public policy.

An employee was ruled to have been lawfully fired for testing positive for THC, despite the fact he had produced documents to his employer proving his use of marijuana was for medical purposes. The California Supreme Court reasoned that there was no indication in the ballot initiative process or the implementing legislation that employers were obligated to make accommodation for the users of drugs prohibited by federal law. Nor did California state public policy make unlawful the discharge of an employee for using drugs prohibited by federal law.

Sherman & Howard has prepared this advisory to provide general information on recent legal development that may be of interest. This advisory does not provide legal advice for any specific situation. This does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and the Firm. If you want legal advice on a specific situation, you must speak with one of our lawyers and reach an express agreement for legal representation.

	Contact Us Services Attorneys News and Events Publications About the Firm Inclusiveness Careers Blog In the Media Events and Registration Press Releases Speaking Engagements Articles Client Advisories Subscriptions History Offices Pro Bono Interlaw Contact Us Culture Legal Opportunities Support Staff Publications Client Advisories Home > Publications > Client Advisories > View Medical Marijuana Use Upheld by Ted Olsen Due to citizen ballot initiatives in many states—including Colorado—legal rights and protections have been extended to persons who use marijuana for medical reasons. See Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, Section 14. For the most part, Colorado employers have not changed their drug testing policies in reaction to this initiative, which passed in 2000. Nor have employers changed their rules against employee use of illegal drugs, including marijuana. In general, employers have believed that the Colorado constitutional amendment simply did not provide people with employment-related rights. One basis for this belief was the statement in the Constitutional amendment, "Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place." Id., § 10(b). On January 24, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a decision giving further comfort to employers. Ross v. RagingWire Telecomm Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 920, 174 P.3d 200 (2008). In RagingWire, the Court decided that an employer that discharges a worker for using medical marijuana (under a system very similar to Colorado's) is not liable under the California employment discrimination law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) or under California state public policy. An employee was ruled to have been lawfully fired for testing positive for THC, despite the fact he had produced documents to his employer proving his use of marijuana was for medical purposes. The California Supreme Court reasoned that there was no indication in the ballot initiative process or the implementing legislation that employers were obligated to make accommodation for the users of drugs prohibited by federal law. Nor did California state public policy make unlawful the discharge of an employee for using drugs prohibited by federal law. Sherman & Howard has prepared this advisory to provide general information on recent legal development that may be of interest. This advisory does not provide legal advice for any specific situation. This does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and the Firm. If you want legal advice on a specific situation, you must speak with one of our lawyers and reach an express agreement for legal representation. © 2008 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. March 3, 2008 Copyright 2000-2013 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy \| Terms of Use