When Is A Crime Not A Crime?:
Sacked Medical Cannabis Sues Ex-Employer For Discrimination
by Simon Magus

garyross.jpgWhen a former US Air Force mechanic found a new job as a computer technician, he expected to test positive for medical cannabis that he was legally given and had the documentation to prove it. But the company didn't recognise California's laws on medical cannabis and fired him.

Gary Ross, 45, is now suing his former employers under disability discrimination laws.

"It's extremely significant -- it's probably not only the most important medical marijuana case in California, but in the nation right now," said Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, the activist group that petitioned California's Supreme Court to hear the case.

"It's a question of civil rights."

Ross was dismissed by RagingWire after a mere eight days on the job -- the company concluded that cannabis was still illegal under federal law.

RagingWire's lawyer, Robert Pattison, believes that employers hiring medical cannabis users are 'arguably being complicit in an activity that's illegal under federal law.'

"He's still free to do those things," said Pattison about Ross' cannabis usage.

"But if he does, we're not obligated to employ him."

But Ross doesn't agree and is suing his former employers for violating the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

"I think I'm standing up for everybody else," said Ross.

"My motivation is that I don't like to lose and that medical marijuana is effective."

After losing in two previous hearings, the case is now before California's Supreme Court.

Justice Joyce Kennard said that under Proposition 215, 'it is not a crime when someone engages in the use of marijuana under supervision of a physician.'

"Under California's Compassionate Use Act, this particular use is allowed," said Kennard.

"What we have is a conflict.'

RagingWire have been joined in court by other corporate interests such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. -- they are concerned that employing cannabis users could lead to the loss of federal contracts.

The right-wing Pacific Legal Foundation also submitted an amicus curae filing to the court, stating that employers could also be liable for damage done by intoxicated workers:

"History abounds with cases of employers found liable because their employees were driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment or otherwise performing tasks made more dangerous by their being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

Posted in: Chemicals by bubblejam at 08:43 AM | Comments (0) | Email This Entry

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)