Firing somebody with a medical-marijuana prescription is illegal discrimination, court rules

The Supreme Court today ruled that the voters approve appropriate medical marijuana funding can conclude that no employer is not only employees who test positive on THC in a drug test if they can demonstrate that they use the medicine prescribed by a doctor.

The ruling in the case of a woman who used a week of marijuana two to relieve three times the pain of Crohn’s disease, who was in charge of marijuana managed by his new employer, published samples in supermarkets – and she had been the Heightened its use.

Although the director Cristina Barbuto Advantage said sales and marketing said there was no problem, she was fired at work after a day, a human resource person who told him

ASM do not care or use Barbuto marijuana to treat their medical conditions because “we are federal law, not the state following the law.”

The state of the Supreme Court said that the state law justified after the effective voters, medical marijuana in 2012 prohibits legal discrimination:

Anyone who meets the requirements of this Act is not subject to Massachusetts law in any way, either the right or privilege of such transactions decreased.

Barbuto, leaving the field described as “disabled” under the Anti-Discrimination Act, because the disease is a “debilitating medical condition” which causes a major problem in your life – they have trouble eating and could not maintain A healthy weight. They carry out their work with “reasonable adjustments” for their boss – do consume marijuana several times a week.

As regards the second argument of the suspects, an employee with disability has medication to reduce or check medical disability which causes disability and the employer brings it because the company policy does not prohibit the law from the fact that the policy has led to a Dismissal of disability. By accusing a company’s logic, the use of insulin for their employees in the way of corporate policy would not discriminate people with diabetes due to their disability, but just a corporate policy ban applying the use of a drug.

ASM, however, argued that the “reasonable adjustments” were unreasonable in search of the fact that marijuana’s possession remains a crime under federal law.

Sorry, the court decided that is where the law of Massachusetts takes precedence: something Barbuto does under Massachusetts law and something that would put ASM at risk because she worked.

The law also shows that it is not “a place of using medical marijuana is necessary in every workplace.” … This restriction is implicitly acknowledged that off-site medical use of marijuana could be a driver’s “home” that is a specific term of the form of discrimination disability.

The fact that marijuana medical staff is in violation of federal law, is a reasonable adjustment. The only thing the risk of federal prosecution for possession of medical marijuana is used. An employer would not be in joint ownership of marijuana or medical care and be in the hands of an employee to be able to continue or use offsite.

 

We also believe that, in terms of public order, to declare that the property itself is unreasonable with respect for federal law a ban on the possession of marijuana, even if legally prescribed by a doctor. Since 1970, when Congress found that marijuana is a regulated substance in Annex I, as opposed to a regulated substance in Annexes II, III, IV or V, “there is no commonly accepted medical treatment used by United States,” almost ninety percent of The states have laws relating to medical marijuana as a result of which he resolved beyond that marijuana, when the doctor prescribed by law, at present accepts medical use in the treatment. … I declare a housing for the medical marijuana itself Unreasonable respect for federal law would not respectfully acknowledge the electorate in Massachusetts shared by legislators or voters in the vast majority of states, which has its accepted medical use marijuana for Some patients with attenuating medical condition.

The judges continued, even if he accepted the argument of illegality, state law still requires a lot of work with ASM Barbuto to find another treatment as effective as marijuana to cope with your complaints, told the court that he did not Did.

The court said that its decision would not apply in all cases. Transport companies, for example, may be a case that the use of marijuana by a driver could hurt their work and safety.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *