Oregon Supreme Court considering medical marijuana status in the workplace
By Charles E. Beggs ASSOCIATED PRESS
9:06 a.m. September 16, 2005
SALEM, Ore. – The Oregon Supreme Court says it will review an appellate court ruling that suggests employers make allowances for workers who use medical marijuana. Robert Washburn, a former millwright at the Columbia Forest products plant at Klamath Falls, had a state-issued card allowing him to use marijuana to ease neck and muscle pain that disrupted his sleep. But the company, which prohibited workers from coming to the plant with controlled substances in their system, fired Washburn in 2001 after he failed several urine tests.
Washburn sued the company, claiming it should have made an allowance for his disability.
A circuit court dismissed the lawsuit, citing a provision in the state medical marijuana law that employers don't have to "accommodate the medical use of marijuana in the workplace."
The appeals court disagreed, saying the test results didn't establish that Washburn had used the drug at work. Moreover, the appeals court said the lower court should decide whether, under the circumstances of the case, Washburn's employer should have had to allow his medical marijuana use.
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments in the case on Nov. 7.
Business groups say employers are highly concerned over the prospect of having to tolerate workers who use drugs.
J.L. Wilson, Oregon director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said Wednesday that the appellate court's "absurd" ruling "clearly took away the ability of employers to manage workplace practices and keep people out of harm's way,"
But David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon arm of the American Civil Liberties Union, said employers should have to make allowances for workers using marijuana legally to relieve medical problems.
"It's important for the law to understand that medical marijuana patients are disabled Oregonians who are entitled to accommodations like other disabled people," he said.
Businesses, however, fear the appeals court ruling opens the door for unreasonable requirements.
"I don't think even proponents of medical marijuana thought we would have to accommodate it in the workplace," said Lisa Trussell of Associated Oregon Industries, a major business lobbying group.
"An employee could take a break in some parking lot and smoke medical marijuana and come back to work, and unless I could prove impairment, I couldn't do anything about it," she said.
Ten other states also have medical marijuana laws. They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Vermont and Washington state. Arizona has a law allowing medical marijuana, but no active program.
I want move to Oregon...
Joe Gardener
nice article.
I haven't kept up with growkind for a while.
Workplace is the problem with the medical marijuana movement. Impairment is the key. The truth is a person can injest a small amount in the evening and be fit for work the next day. What the workplace is trying to do is keep that "any use is abuse" in effect. I mean, they accept that people drink, take pills and such and they have to wait for impairment to take action. Yet with medical marijuana people they can actually be healthy and productive.
I am affraid that we medical people who are not taking monies from the Government and who hold jobs, pay taxes and are productive members of our communities must stand and fall like solders until we can overcome the reign of the corporate powers over personal liberties. Liberties such as using medical marijuana in California in a responsible way.
Sure we will always have people who have drug problems but I will not stand for good people being punished for a crime they didn't commit just because it goes against the corporate decree.
People at some point we have to stand up against the corporate government. If not you better be sure to have your papers in order.
georged5150
Any news on this case? I have read some but can't seem to get what the verdict was.
5150
Joe Gardener
Justices aren't expected to issue a ruling on the case until 2006.
