Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. and Assembly Bill 2279 (California)‏

Case law in two of these states (California and Oregon) has determined that a private employer may still terminate an employee for failing a company drug test, even if that employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally.

On January 24, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire a medical marijuana patient for a positive drug test, even if the patient is using medical marijuana legally under state law.

The ruling did not affect California’s medical marijuana laws, but clarified that the laws do not cover employment discrimination. The Court was unwilling to extend the law in a way that it felt was not explicitly stated in the Compassionate Use Act and its implementing legislation.

The case, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions.
How effective is the infamous urinalysis?

Employees are prohibited from reporting to work or working while under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs that adversely affect the employee’s ability to safely perform his or her job duties.
Among the reported 75 million Americans over age 26 who report having used cannabis, more than 70 percent are employed full-time. Many of these individuals are subject to random workplace drug testing. Urinalysis remains the most popular means of drug detection available in the United States, particularly in workplace drug testing programs. Courts generally look upon urine specimen collection as a relatively non-invasive practice, and there are national standards for urine testing in place as well as national certification programs for laboratories performing forensic urine drug testing.

However, standard urinalysis tests for cannabis, in their current form, are not suitable for detecting acute cannabis impairment or recent cannabis use. A fact, that has been brought about because the procedure only detects the presence of inert drug metabolites (compounds produced from chemical changes of a psychoactive substance in the body, but they are not necessarily psychoactive themselves), not the psychoactive parent compound THC.

Presently, no dose-concentration relationship exists correlating cannabinoid metabolite levels to cannabis impairment, nor does a positive test result provide an employer with any indication as to whether the substance may have been ingested while their employee was on the job.(Norml Website) As an objection to the Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., what can an employer do if a person is practicing the safe-regards of consumption based on the previous noted researched facts and statements concerning the legal regards of marijuana and working besides thrashing out it’s power in an non-effective procedure known as termination?

A suggestion might imply that if wage considerations can be noted as a resolve to influencing a positive economic balance, then, considerations should, be made to bring forth a resolve to an out dated policy and practicing procedure in detecting harsh, harmful, and illegal substances as stands, Urinalysis.

Assembly Bill 2279

Assembly Bill 2279 would ban employment discrimination against patients who use medical cannabis in compliance with the rules and regulations of marijuana medicinal policies under California law. Employees who possess a physician’s approval to use medicinal cannabis should possess similar workplace protections as do those workers prescribed other prescription drugs — many of which are far more impairing than marijuana. In many cases, marijuana is as a superior substitute for other, more dangerous FDA-approved prescription drugs whose use is protected.

As measures are resolving to conclude a reasonable means for considering an adjustment to drug testing policy in the regards to a work place how may Florida be considered when exposure of this matter is expected and expressed?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: