WA State Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MMUA)
The Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA) does not protect an employee who uses the drug as specified in the law from being fired for having a positive drug test, the state supreme court ruled June 9, 2011, in an 8-1 decision.
The 1998 law (R.C.W. Ch. 69.51A) provides an affirmative defense against criminal prosecution of physicians for prescribing marijuana and of qualified patients for using it. Jane Roe suffered from debilitating migraine headaches. After conventional medications failed to relieve her symptoms, her doctor prescribed medical marijuana.
The drug provided Roe with so much relief that she was able to work, and TeleTech Customer Care Management offered her a position as a customer service representative, contingent on the results of a drug test. Roe told the company about her use of medical marijuana, but when her drug test came back positive, she was fired. Roe sued for wrongful termination, claiming MUMA prohibited her firing.
The trial court granted TeleTech summary judgment, holding that MUMA only provides an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution under state drug laws and does not imply a civil cause of action. The appeals court affirmed, and Roe appealed to the supreme court.
The only reference to employment in the law states in part, "Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any on-site medical marijuana use in any place of employment ...," which does not confer any obligation on private employers, the supreme court found. "The language of MUMA is unambiguous-it does not regulate the conduct of a private employer or protect an employee from being discharged because of authorized medical marijuana use," the court ruled, adding that Washington patients have no legal right to use marijuana under federal law.
"MUMA does not prohibit an employer from discharging an employee for medical marijuana use," does not "provide a civil remedy against an employer" and "does not proclaim sufficient public policy to give rise to" an action "for wrongful termination for authorized use of medical marijuana," the court declared in an opinion written by Justice Charles Wiggins affirming the appeals court's decision.
Justice Tom Chambers dissented, saying he believed a jury should hear Roe's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Roe v. TeleTech, Wash. Sup. Ct., No. 83768-6 (June 9, 2011).
(Article courtesy of SHRM)
