Sana Swe and Rishi Sharma on Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications (off-duty marijuana use & job performance)
In Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., a five-justice majority of the California Supreme Court rejected a plaintiffs assertions that his discharge, based on off-duty, off-premises marijuana use that allegedly did not impact his job duties or performance, (i) was protected by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996; (ii) was unlawful under the disability provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (iii) violated his constitutional right of privacy. In reaching its conclusion, the California Supreme Court virtually abolished employee lawsuits that challenge employment actions based on an employer’s lawful knowledge of any marijuana use.
“The California Supreme Court began its analysis by recognizing the intersection of two sets of conflicting authority first, the open conflict between state and federal law regarding the use and possession of marijuana; and second, the apparent conflict between the Compassionate Use Acts purposes and the supreme courts own jurisprudence regarding drug testing and its consequences for employers,” explain the authors.
The Supreme Court was faced with the conflict between California’s statutory protection for the medical use of marijuana as a result of Proposition 215 and the continuing federal prohibition of THC-based substances. The authors discuss the majority and dissenting opinions and the impact of the ruling on employers and employees
NOTE: This expert analysis, which was written by Sana Swe and Rishi Sharma of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, is also published in the March 2008 issue of Benders California Labor & Employment Bulletin.