Recent Spending Bill

[ballandchained32]

Hello All,

I am writing this in regards to the recent spending bill:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

 

I am curious as to what this means for patients whom currently cannot medicate due to employer restrictions. As far as I know, employers reserve the right randomly test for marijuana and fire employees based on federal law, regardless of what medical right has been granted per state law.

 

I work for a large company in Michigan and hold a medical marijuana card. I do not exercise this right in fear of a random test that could take away my job. If medical marijuana is now recognized federally, does this give me the protection as a card holder to medicate? What if my job is heavily safety dependent?

 

I know this is relatively new, but any sound legal advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

 

Thank you!!

 

[t-pain]

no its still illegal federally. 

 

that spending bill means not much for issues like that. its very symbolic , and might change some federal court cases.

 

ask your company (anonymously!!!) if employee can use medical marijuana when hes at home.

maybe your employer is cool with it and you just dont know! its worth a call. have a friend call if you are too scared to do it yourself. and dont use your own phone (caller id) or email to do it.

 

ask your union rep if you got one.

Edited January 6, 2015 by t-pain

[ballandchained32]

Thank you for the reply. As far as I know, my company stands behind the federal law. I do agree though. Worth looking into for myself though.

Thank you!

[+washtenaut]

Employers can do most anything they wish in Michigan.  When the law does eventually get changed, employers will still be able to terminate you for any reason.  Soooo, a 'protected patient' can be terminated because 'you are not a good fit' or some other BS reason.  It will be a long time before the law will actually protect cannabis patient rights, imo. 

 

A better hope may be the tightening of the labor market.  If a company really needs workers, they may decide to be more accepting of 'less than ideal' candidates.

[t-pain]

michigan is already a fired "at will" state.

just that the employer has to pay unemployment for the employee that was fired, including fired for medical marijuana.

 

thats the only thing that discourages firing for mmj, that the company has to pay unemployment because they fired the guy.

so the company then has to do the math and figure out if its worth firing an employee and paying unemployment, or just keeping him at his job.

 

the unemployment law is partially there to discourage companies from firing people for political reasons. i think?

that or i'm completely wrong

[GregS]

Bill Schuette is appealing Braska v LARA which currently establishes protection for unemployment for patients, unfortunately.

Good for us. I'd like nothing better than to see him handed his azz by the Supreme Court one more time.

[knucklehead bob]

Good for us. I'd like nothing better than to see him handed his azz by the Supreme Court one more time.

 

Double Ditto !

[ballandchained32]

Excellent advice and info. Thank you all. Its just a darn shame lol. Not saying anything you all dont already know.

So even if its legal federally, there is still a chance my company could reserve the right to fire me?? If so, kill me now!! Haha

[GregS]

Excellent advice and info. Thank you all. Its just a darn shame lol. Not saying anything you all dont already know.

So even if its legal federally, there is still a chance my company could reserve the right to fire me?? If so, kill me now!! Haha

Michigan is a right to work state b&c, meaning that an employer reserves the right to fire you for any reason. How that might play along with the mma and discrimination civil rights law is an interesting question. I expect instances to arise in the forseeable future. Civil suits would then come into play.

[YesMichigan]

Not to be "that guy" but Michigan is an "At will" state which means you can terminate your employment at any time and your employer can terminate you at any time. You can be fired without cause but will be entitled to unemployment compensation. If the employer goes out of their way to demonstrate "cause" motivated by some form of discrimination (race, age, gender etc.) then you can file civil charges against the employer. "Right to Work" or RTW means employment can not be contingent upon union membership (in a nutshell).

 

Regardless, the employee manual likely says that any employee who tests positive for illegal narcotics (Federal definition wins for most industries if they care in the first place) can be subject to punishment up to and including termination. Thus failing a test can be interpreted as a "willful quit" because the employee knew the consequences. It is similar to being consistently tardy and disciplined or not showing up for three straight days. You were informed of what could happen but did it anyway - you quit. This is an argument that an employer would use to fight an unemployment compensation claim. Most employer don't fight it. They just say it was "At will" and move on. Which brings us to....

 

"Bill Schuette is appealing Braska v LARA which currently establishes protection for unemployment for patients, unfortunately."
I can't find information for this case searching any combination of those. Can you help me find information regarding the initial ruling or the appeal, please?

[GregS]

Not to be "that guy" but Michigan is an "At will" state which means you can terminate your employment at any time and your employer can terminate you at any time. You can be fired without cause but will be entitled to unemployment compensation. If the employer goes out of their way to demonstrate "cause" motivated by some form of discrimination (race, age, gender etc.) then you can file civil charges against the employer. "Right to Work" or RTW means employment can not be contingent upon union membership (in a nutshell).

 

Regardless, the employee manual likely says that any employee who tests positive for illegal narcotics (Federal definition wins for most industries if they care in the first place) can be subject to punishment up to and including termination. Thus failing a test can be interpreted as a "willful quit" because the employee knew the consequences. It is similar to being consistently tardy and disciplined or not showing up for three straight days. You were informed of what could happen but did it anyway - you quit. This is an argument that an employer would use to fight an unemployment compensation claim. Most employer don't fight it. They just say it was "At will" and move on. Which brings us to....

 

"Bill Schuette is appealing Braska v LARA which currently establishes protection for unemployment for patients, unfortunately."

I can't find information for this case searching any combination of those. Can you help me find information regarding the initial ruling or the appeal, please?

My mistake.

 

Dunno where to find the case.