cannabisnews.com: New Rulings on Medical Marijuana Use
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('New Rulings on Medical Marijuana Use');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/29/thread29342.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






New Rulings on Medical Marijuana Use
Posted by CN Staff on October 02, 2018 at 10:16:43 PT
By Dave Collins, Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
Hartford, Conn. -- Health care worker Katelin Noffsinger told a potential employer that she took medical marijuana to deal with the effects of a car accident, but when a drug test came back positive, the nursing home rescinded her job offer anyway.A federal judge last month ruled that the nursing home, which had cited federal laws against pot use, violated an anti-discrimination provision of the Connecticut's medical marijuana law.
It was the latest in a series of clashes between U.S. and state laws around the country that came out in favor of medical marijuana users trying to keep or obtain jobs with drug-testing employers.The Connecticut decision was the first ruling of its kind in a federal case and followed similar recent rulings against employers by state courts in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Earlier rulings had gone against medical pot users in employment cases by state supreme courts including those in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington over the past few years.Advocates hope new the new decisions are a signal of growing acceptance of cannabis' medicinal value."This decision reflects the rapidly changing cultural and legal status of cannabis, and affirms that employers should not be able to discriminate against those who use marijuana responsibly while off the job, in compliance with the laws of their state," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a pro-marijuana group.Noffsinger, of Manchester, sued Bride Brook Health & Rehabilitation Center in Niantic in 2016. She had been offered, and accepted, a job as recreation therapy director at the nursing home, contingent on her passing a drug test.She told the nursing home that she took synthetic marijuana pills — legally under state law and only at night — to treat the post-traumatic stress disorder she developed after the 2012 car accident. But the company rescinded the job offer after the drug test came back positive for THC, the chemical in marijuana that gets people high.As a federal contractor, the nursing home worried that it could be cut off from that revenue if it employed somebody who tested positive.On Sept. 5, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer in New Haven ruled Bride Brook discriminated against Noffsinger based solely on her medical marijuana use in violation of state law. He denied her request for punitive damages. The case is now heading to a trial on whether Noffsinger should receive compensatory damages for lost wages from not getting the job.A lawyer for the nursing home, Thomas Blatchley, declined to comment.Noffsinger's attorney, Henry Murray, said Noffsinger would not comment on the lawsuit. He said Noffsinger has taken another job in the health care industry that doesn't pay as much as the Bride Brook job.In his ruling, Meyer said the federal Drug Free Workplace Act, which many employers including federal contractors rely on for policies on drug testing, does not actually require drug testing and does not prohibit federal contractors from employing people who use medical marijuana outside the workplace in accordance with state law.The decision will likely be used in arguments in similar cases elsewhere, said Fiona Ong, an employment attorney with the Baltimore firm of Shawe Rosenthal."This is a very significant case that throws the issue in doubt for many of these federal contractors," Ong said. "It's certainly interesting and may be indicative of where the courts are going with this."Thirty-one states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam now allow medical marijuana, while 15 others have approved low-THC-level products for medical reasons in certain cases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nine states and Washington, D.C., have legalized recreational pot.Only nine states including Connecticut, however, specifically ban employment discrimination against medical marijuana users, who could continue to face difficulties in obtaining or keeping jobs in the 41 other states, employment lawyers say.In Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled last year that a sales and marketing company wrongly fired a worker after her first day on the job after she tested positive for marijuana, which she used under the state's medical marijuana law to treat her Crohn's disease. Also last year, in Rhode Island, the state Supreme Court said a college student was wrongly denied an internship at a fabric company where officials refused to hire her after she acknowledged she could not pass a drug test because she used medical marijuana.In both cases, the two women told the companies during the hiring process that they used medical marijuana, but would not consume it while on the job.The American Bar Association called the Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island cases "an emerging trend in employment litigation" and cautioned employers to consider state medical marijuana laws when analyzing their drug use and testing policies.Several bills are pending before Congress that would undo marijuana's classification as a controlled substance with no medicinal value. But Armentano, of NORML, said it is unlikely they will go anywhere while Republicans control Congress.Some employers, though, have dropped marijuana from the drug tests they require of employees, saying the testing excludes too many potential workers in a challenging hiring environment.Source: Associated Press (Wire) Author: Dave Collins, Associated PressPublished: October 2, 2018Copyright: 2018 The Associated PressCannabisNews  Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on October 04, 2018 at 11:04:36 PT
urine testing
...it's an abomination that is finally starting to die off. Testing employees for off-the-job cannabis use has never made sense, it's very expensive to urine test and cannabis is usually the only drug it can detect. Maine is the 1st state to ban testing employees for cannabis.I always liked this quote about it - great book!>>on drug testing from Drug Warriors and Their Prey - From Police Power to Police State, by Richard Lawrence Miller:"If drug use typically caused employees to become unsatisfactory, drug testing would be unnecessary: An incompetent worker can be disciplined or fired regardless of drug use. The purpose of workplace drug testing is to target satisfactory employees for punishment. The purpose is to identify ordinary people who can be victimized. Urine tests fulfill the same function that the yellow star did for Jews in Nazi Germany, identifying them for ostracism because nothing about their appearance or behavior differed from that of other ordinary people."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Hope on October 04, 2018 at 09:28:52 PT
anti-discrimination provision
Every state should have this anti-discrimination provision in place. Kudos to Connecticut for their foresight. I always expected and still expect more of our original thirteen colonies. They should be the shining example to the rest of the nation as to what those original "Yankees" were supposed to be about. I've mostly been disappointed at their reluctance as governments, to stand up for freedom, liberty, and human rights as far as cannabis/hemp is concerned. This protection of liberty is not a disappointment though. It's what I expected of one of the thirteen. It's what I always hoped they were still all about.I like to think those thirteen original colonies are little but they are loud and that they still stand for something when it comes to protecting the average person from super powerful entities like insurance companies, overreaching corporations, and all the people that make their life's work about sucking away the liberty of others.An employer has rights, but unjust discrimination is not something they have a right to. Cannabis use, for a fact, anecdotally and scientifically, does not make a person a poor employee or worker. At all. Thank you, Connecticut. Land of the free. Home of the brave.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by The GCW on October 03, 2018 at 17:41:10 PT
DISCRIMINATION all along, now acknowledged.
Cannabis prohibition, has always been a crime of discrimination from the beginning. Now We are seeing instances be labeled "discrimination" & that is another of many moves forward.Acknowledging cannabis prohibition is discrimination will increase.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by HempWorld on October 02, 2018 at 16:21:52 PT
Victory!
Yessss... !Sweet!At last! But not last!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment