Pubdate: Thu, 26 May 2011
Source: Sacramento News & Review (CA)
Column: the 420
Copyright: 2011 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://newsreview.com/sacto/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/540
Author: Katie Hanzlik

CHRONIC EMPLOYMENT

New Bill Would Prevent Employers From Discriminating Against 
Medical-Pot Patients

When 45-year-old disabled Air Force veteran Gary Ross was fired from 
his job after failing a drug test, he informed his employer that he 
was legally permitted by his doctor to use medical marijuana. 
Unfortunately, this did not save Ross' job. It did, however, spark 
conversation about discrimination in the workplace, and whether there 
should be a provision in the law to protect medical-marijuana 
patients from termination based on their (legal) drug use.

Ross sued for unlawful discrimination, and the California Supreme 
Court eventually determined that he, being a qualified patient, was 
not protected in the workplace under any law. Neither the 
Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which authorized the use of marijuana 
for medical purposes, nor the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which 
established protections for employees and employers, provide any clarification.

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, is proposing legislation that 
would provide employment rights to the nearly 500,000 people in 
California who legally use medical cannabis. Because these 
Californians are not protected under current law, patients must often 
find jobs that don't require drug testing.

Senate Bill 129 would change this, making it illegal for employers to 
discriminate against an employee on the basis of a positive drug 
test, provided that the employee is a qualified patient. Nearly 
identical to Assembly Bill 2279 (which Sen. Leno proposed in 2008 and 
which passed through both houses, only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold 
Schwarzenegger), S.B. 129 passed out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee last month and is set for a vote soon on the Senate floor.

S.B. 129 is sponsored by Americans for Safe Access, which hopes that 
the bill will "finally win protection for responsible, law-abiding 
patients in the workplace." ASA sees the bill as a sensible one, 
which would encourage the employment of Californians and, in keeping 
qualified patients employed, avoid further strain on state welfare programs.

While A.B. 2279 was supported by the Legislature when it was proposed 
in 2008, many employment organizations have come forward in 
opposition to S.B. 129. Many opponents worry that the bill would 
allow employees to come to work impaired or use marijuana during work hours.

One key facet of the bill is the stipulation that the qualified 
patient cannot be under the influence at work or during working 
hours. Additionally, the protections provided under S.B. 129 would 
not be extended to employees who work in what the bill calls a 
"safety sensitive" position. This would include any position where 
the employee could have the capacity to affect the health or safety 
of others. The vagueness of this part of the bill has raised some 
alarm among those who aren't convinced of the bill's viability.

Given the former success of A.B. 2279, it is likely that S.B. 129 
will pass in the Legislature. But the road to becoming law is long, 
and whether the bill receives the appropriate edits when it is 
submitted for further committee review will determine its eventual success.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom