On June 9, 2011, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that TeleTech, a Colorado-based company, is within its rights for firing a woman after her drug-screen test tested positive for cannabis. But, that woman was an authorized medical marijuana holder.
Jane Roe, fired in 2006, sued and lost on an 8-1 vote. The court stated that even with a valid medical marijuana authorization and with no evidence that she was working while impaired, the company was still within its rights for firing her.
Jane Roe, fired in 2006, sued and lost on an 8-1 vote. The court stated that even with a valid medical marijuana authorization and with no evidence that she was working while impaired, the company was still within its rights for firing her.
A case of employment discrimination against medical marijuana users practically getting thrown out in favor of a company, how could it happen? Well, according to the court, the laws weren’t clear enough.
Afterwards, Michael Subit, Roe’s attorney, pointed out that voters need to work on modifying the current medical marijuana law to protect employees’ right to use mmj outside of work.
The lone Justice that spoke out for the rights of medical cannabis patients argued that voters’ intent in passing the 1998 medical-marijuana law was to protect patients prescribed cannabis for medical purposes.
TeleTech’s director of marketing communications wrote this statement to The Colorado Independent: “...we are pleased with the Supreme Court of Washington’s ruling in the case of Jane Roe vs. TeleTech. The Court’s decision in TeleTech’s favor protects the rights of our U.S. employees to work in a safe and drug-free work environment.”
Safe? Let’s take a step aside and critically think about this. What if Jane Roe hadn’t been fired? What if TeleTech saw the drug result, validated her authorization, and since her use of medical marijuana did not interfere with her ability to work, let her keep her job. This does not change the work environment to be unsafe. I highly doubt Ms. Roe would have caused any trouble. In fact, she probably would have appreciated her new employer caring about her and her medical issues.
The director goes on to mention that maintaining a drug-free environment protects client’s customers’ confidential information. Mr. Director is taking generalizations about “drugs” and applying it to abstract consequences. This use of fear to try and convince people that TeleTech is the one in the right is disgusting.
Luckily, this attitude isn’t shared by many people around Washington State. This case has shown that not many people agree with TeleTech. There is a small minority that think it is alright to fire someone for using medical marijuana at home. That’s because it isn’t.
Luckily, this attitude isn’t shared by many people around Washington State. This case has shown that not many people agree with TeleTech. There is a small minority that think it is alright to fire someone for using medical marijuana at home. That’s because it isn’t.
Since this case isn’t about Roe being impaired or using medical cannabis around work time, it is a case about Jane Roe’s status as a Medical Marijuana Patient. According to this decision, WA courts have made Jane Roe into an example that having the label of Medical Marijuana Patient means that you don’t deserve honest work.
But, wait... Let’s take a moment to see what other states have been thinking about the subject. Well, in Colorado, the home base for TeleTech, a Coors employee, Paul Curry, was fired for testing positive for medical marijuana. Unlike Roe, he won the unemployment case against Coors.
The statement from Curry’s attorney, Rob Corry, discussing the case in Washington, highlights some reasons why the case in Washington failed:
“My comment on the Washington case: The Roe case out of Washington is easily distinguishable from Mr. Curry’s action to be brought in Colorado, as Ms. Roe did not assert a claim for discrimination based upon disability, and that will be our chief claim in Mr. Curry’s case. Moreover, Colorado’s Constitution has stronger protections for medical marijuana patients than Washington statutes, and Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws are more solid precedent.”
Now, every Washington citizen that is a Medical Marijuana patient has to fear for their employment status. They have to worry that the label of ‘medical marijuana’, despite its legality, might get them fired. Companies need no other reason. A employee could be doing the best they can and be ready to work hard, but that drug-screening test will automatically shut down their opportunities. The worst part about it is that patients with medical marijuana often have it because it gives them a quality of life where they are actually able to go work.
Now, every Washington citizen that is a Medical Marijuana patient has to fear for their employment status. They have to worry that the label of ‘medical marijuana’, despite its legality, might get them fired. Companies need no other reason. A employee could be doing the best they can and be ready to work hard, but that drug-screening test will automatically shut down their opportunities. The worst part about it is that patients with medical marijuana often have it because it gives them a quality of life where they are actually able to go work.
In my opinion, this whole court ruling is based off of ignorance and fear. The Justices chose the safe way and threw the mess onto “the voters”. The voter process requires a mass amount of energy, time and resources. By the time this whole issue is sorted out, thousands of people could be fired out of discrimination for medical marijuana patients.
