- About About
Medical Patient Resources Becoming a State-Authorized Patient Talking to your doctor Which conditions qualify? The Medical Cannabis Patient’s Guide for U.S. Travel Patient's Guide to CBD Patient's Guide to Medical Cannabis Guide to Using Medical Cannabis Condition-based Booklets Growing Cannabis Cannabis Tincture, Salve, Butter and Oil Recipes Leaf411 Affordability Program Tracking Treatment & Gathering Data with Releaf App Medical Professional Resources CME for Medical Professionals Cannabis Safety Medical Cannabis Research
- Legal Legal
Advocacy ASA Chapters Start an ASA Chapter Take Action Campaigns No Patient Left Behind End Pain, Not Lives Vote Medical Marijuana Medical Cannabis Advocate's Training Center Resources for Tabling and Lobby Days Strategic Planning Civics 101 Strategic Messaging Citizen Lobbying Participating in Implementation Movement Building Organizing a Demonstration Organizing Turnout for Civic Meetings Public Speaking Media 101 Patient's History of Medical Cannabis
- News News
Policy Model Federal Legislation Download Ending The Federal Conflict Public Comments by ASA Industry Standards Guide to Regulating Industry Standards Recognizing Science using the Data Quality Act Fact Sheet on ASA's Data Quality Act Petition to HHS Data Quality Act Briefs ASA Data Quality Act petition to HHS Information on Lawyers and Named Patients in the Data Quality Act Lawsuit Reports 2020 State of the States Medical Cannabis in America Medical Cannabis Access for Pain Treatment
- Join Join
In an 8-1 decision, a third state supreme court -- in this case, the Washington Supreme Court -- issued a negative decision regarding the employment rights of medical marijuana patients. In Jane Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management, LLC, the Washington Supreme Court held that Washington's Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA) does not provide any civil remedy to a medical patient who is terminated from employment because of testing positive for the off-site use of marijuana.
Following in the footsteps of the California Supreme Court's decision in Ross v. Ragingwire, the court held that Washington's MUMA provides a defense only to criminal sanctions, and does not afford any civil protection against discrimination by private employers. But, as the dissent points out, MUMA expressly states that:
[a]ny person meeting the requirements appropriate to his or her status under [MUMA] shall be considered to have engaged in activities permitted under this chapter and shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for such actions.
Thus, "Roe seems to be exactly the sort of person the people intended to protect."
The dissent concludes by "urg[ing] the legislature to thoughtfully review and improve the act," which is precisely what Americans for Safe Access has been seeking to do in the State of California and will continue to do so in next year's legislative session. Studies have shown that medical marijuana use does not impair workplace safety. It is about time that courts recognize this and provide employment protection to medical marijuana patients, as the voters intended.