- About About
-
Medical
Medical
Medical Patient Resources Becoming a State-Authorized Patient Talking to your doctor 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
Advocacy
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
-
Policy
Policy
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 Access for Pain Treatment Medical Cannabis in America
- Join Join
-
-
Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications
On September 7, 2005, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District issued a published decision denying a qualified medical marijuana patient any remedy for being terminated from his/her employment simply for testing positive for marijuana. In Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., the court relied on federal law to defeat Gary Ross' state law causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and employment discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Hoping to overturn this discriminatory decision, ASA joined the lawsuit as co-counsel, and on November 30, 2005, the California Supreme Court (CSC) granted review. The opening brief before the CSC was filed on February 7, 2006. Then, on July 25, 2006, three support (amicus) briefs were filed on behalf of Ross: a medical-based brief filed by ten local, state, and national organizations, inlcuding the American Nurses Association; a legislative-based brief filed by all of the original authors of SB 420; and a disability rights brief filed by two prominent rights groups.
Unfortunately, on January 24, 2008, in a 5-2 opinion, the California Supreme Court narrowly construed the Compassionate Use Act to rule in favor of the employer and hold that medical marijuana patients cannot state civil causes of action for employment discrimination.In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Joyce Kennard criticized the majority opinion for its lack of compassion and described it as “disrespect[ing] the will of California’s voters who, when they enacted the Compassionate Use Act, surely never intended that persons who availed themselves of its provisions would thereby disqualify themselves from employment.”
- Petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court (filed 10/17/05)
- Reply brief to answer on petition for review (filed 11/10/05)
- Amicus letter by Drug Policy Alliance (filed 11/28/05)
- ASA opening brief for the California Supreme Court (filed 2/7/06)
- RagingWire opposition brief (filed 4/21/06)
- ASA reply brief (filed 6/32/2006)
- Medical-based amicus brief in support of Ross (filed 7/25/06)
- Legislative-based amicus brief in support of Ross (filed 7/25/06)
- Disability rights amicus brief in support of Ross (filed 7/25/06)
- California Supreme Court decision (1/24/08)
Share
Focus on Your State!
