Is it ok for a company to fire you for MMJ use?

[Mr. Jelly]

Good conversation with allot of good points. When I started in the workforce nobody tested for MJ. And it was socially acceptable to have a couple of beers at lunch. Or drinks for that matter. Even when you had lunch with the boss. Nobody cared. How things have changed. I think it all started down hill when they stopped having daytime baseball games.

[Davis Webb]

It will be legal to use cannabis and grow it in Canada in less than one month, Oct 17 is the date.

Already it has been made clear that if any of the following apply you will probably be denied permission to enter the US, even for business.

1. Take MMJ as prescription and admit to it (?!!!)
2. Admit to even trying it once.
3. Admit to owning shares in an MMJ company.
4. Admit to working in a legal dispensary.
5. Have admitted to it on social media, any time in the past.

[buzzardwhiskey]

Originally Posted by jhmulkey

Sure it could. Wearing whatever clothing you want is both legal and a right, yet you can be fired if you don't adhere to company dress code. You can even be fired based on your actions outside of work / off the clock. I doubt any wrongful-termination suit would hold up for these kinds of things. Now, if you were fired for refusing to do something illegal at the request of your employer, etc. that's a different case.

Can they fire you for taking morphine for pain at night?

It's weird what rights we can and cannot sign away. Personally, I don't think any of these are written in the sky as it were.

[seannx]

Originally Posted by Davis Webb

It will be legal to use cannabis and grow it in Canada in less than one month, Oct 17 is the date.

Already it has been made clear that if any of the following apply you will probably be denied permission to enter the US, even for business.

1. Take MMJ as prescription and admit to it (?!!!)
2. Admit to even trying it once.
3. Admit to owning shares in an MMJ company.
4. Admit to working in a legal dispensary.
5. Have admitted to it on social media, any time in the past.

This is already happening. Canadians coming in to the US at the border with Washington state are asked if they have ever used MMJ. If the answer is yes, entry can be and is often denied. Although it’s legal in Washington, the border station is following Federal policy.

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

Can they fire you for taking morphine for pain at night?

It's weird what rights we can and cannot sign away. Personally, I don't think any of these are written in the sky as it were.

I thought we were talking about illegal drugs with regard to workplace policies, not doctor-prescribed... But if your job requires you to not be taking any strong medications, and you agreed to that, then it seems pretty clear to me. If something changes in your health, it could very well be that your job might be in jeopardy depending on the nature of your job and health condition.

[Nyghthawk]

Originally Posted by jhmulkey

I thought we were talking about illegal drugs with regard to workplace policies, not doctor-prescribed... But if your job requires you to not be taking any strong medications, and you agreed to that, then it seems pretty clear to me. If something changes in your health, it could very well be that your job might be in jeopardy depending on the nature of your job and health condition.

Medical Marijuana is doctor prescribed by definition. It IS legal in 25 states and DC. Just sayin'.

[BrunoBlack]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

Medical Marijuana is doctor prescribed by definition. It IS legal in 25 states and DC. Just sayin'.

It’s growing...

[AmericanEagle]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

Medical Marijuana is doctor prescribed by definition. It IS legal in 25 states and DC. Just sayin'.

Yes.
I had to go to a doctor to get an approval to even request a card.
Once approved by a certified doctor, I had to pay a $50 fee and register
myself with the state of Mass.
I then had to wait 2 weeks for my card to show up in the mail.
The card is good for one year, then I’ll need to go through the process of renewal.
All totally legal of course.

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

Medical Marijuana is doctor prescribed by definition. It IS legal in 25 states and DC. Just sayin'.

I know. Therefore, I'm saying unless the employer specifically prohibits that employees be on such medication, then I don't see how it could be an issue. I would interpret drug-free to mean employees not using drugs in an illegal manner, not employees taking prescribed medication.

[Golffishny]

If I took anything that impaired my function and put myself, co-workers or company property at risk I was required to report that to my supervisor and would not be allowed to work. Policy was safety first and reducing company liability right behind it.

[rokdog49]

I believe any private business should have the right to protect itself and it's employees. Whether pot is legal or illegal, it is still a drug and if an employer chooses not to hire or retain employees with THC in their system, that's it.
In the real world, the labor pool of blu-collar non users is very small. My daughter is an HR Manager with a warehouse location in Oregon. The company policy is "no marijuana".
Try to find employable labor. Pretty much impossible.

[Nyghthawk]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I believe any private business should have the right to protect itself and it's employees. Whether pot is legal or illegal, it is still a drug and if an employer chooses not to hire or retain employees with THC in their system, that's it.

Water soluble drugs (read heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, opioids) are out of your system (so far as a UA will detect) after 48 hours, sometimes less. THC is fat soluble. It can still be detected for +- 60 days. When I was working for Child Protective Services we called a UA a pot test because that was all we were likely to catch. Hair follicle tests are much more accurate (and much more expensive).

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I believe any private business should have the right to protect itself and it's employees. Whether pot is legal or illegal, it is still a drug and if an employer chooses not to hire or retain employees with THC in their system, that's it.
In the real world, the labor pool of blu-collar non users is very small. My daughter is an HR Manager with a warehouse location in Oregon. The company policy is "no marijuana".
Try to find employable labor. Pretty much impossible.

But of course the reality is, it is not that simple and "that" is not really "it" ...because while no ones questions the idea that a company can "protect itself"
And certainly a no marijuana use policy (in the context of getting stoned while at work), is perfectly viable and reasonable, just like a no alcohol use at work policy . That is not the question posed in the OP The question and discussion is about medical use and or being fired for a positive test even if the person is not "Stoned at work " and thus not a threat to a company protecting itself.

[Chicago Sandy]

I have definite opinions about legalization but I will not express them here. Besides, that's against AGF rules.

But speaking as someone who's defended a couple of DUI cases where the "impairment" substance (in IL, it's "DUI" meaning "driving under the influence," not "DWI" or "driving while intoxicated") was marijuana, I can say that THC can be detected in blood or urine up to 28 days after exposure to marijuana. In reality, a person can be absolutely sober when tested (not under the influence of anything but food, water & oxygen) yet test positive after having toked four weeks earlier.

Sadly, "reality" does not have any bearing on "evidence" a judge can consider in a court of law--because current state statutes neither compel nor even allow a judge to take that particular "reality" into account when either deciding guilt or innocence or imposing sentence.

Extrapolating from that, it would therefore be permissible for an employer to hold to a zero-tolerance policy for urine levels of a particular substance, even if such levels do not indicate recent enough use. An ADA suit would also not be successful, because while an employer cannot discriminate against someone with a disability or a disabling disease (so long as the condition doesn't prevent performance of job duties), it can impose rules against employee use of particular treatments for such a condition.

I'm not your lawyer (I'm retired anyway), but if it were me? If they don't ask and they don't test, don't tell. But to be on the safe side, try to take other more conventional treatments.

It's also a legal minefield to take advantage of legitimately holding an MMJ permit by using pot for recreational purposes even when not suffering symptoms of one's "qualifying medical condition."

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

Sadly, "reality" does not have any bearing on "evidence" a judge can consider in a court of law--because current state statutes neither compel nor even allow a judge to take that particular "reality" into account when either deciding guilt or innocence or imposing sentence.

Extrapolating from that, it would therefore be permissible for an employer to hold to a zero-tolerance policy for urine levels of a particular substance, even if such levels do not indicate recent enough use. An ADA suit would also not be successful, because while an employer cannot discriminate against someone with a disability or a disabling disease (so long as the condition doesn't prevent performance of job duties), it can impose rules against employee use of particular treatments for such a condition.

As per the link in my post #37 that appears to have changed somewhat at least in Mass. Where the S.court ruled it was discrimination, so perhaps a bit of "reality" did have "bearing" and actually prevailed

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/07/17/sjc-rules-mass-companies-can-fire-workers-just-because-they-use-medical-marijuana/nxPMEGF0uzbjawXeCkA35J/story.html


Here are the opening paragraphs

Massachusetts companies cannot fire employees who have a prescription for medical marijuana simply because they use the drug, the state’s highest court ruled Monday, rejecting employers’ arguments that they could summarily enforce strict no-drug policies against such patients.

Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph D. Gants said a California sales and marketing firm discriminated against an employee of its Massachusetts operation who uses marijuana to treat Crohn’s disease when it fired her for flunking a drug test.