Medical marijuana user with ACLU sue WalMart over firing

[Juan McCain]

A 5 year employee that tested positive for cannabis after what sounds something like a twisted ankle is fired from a WalMart in Michigan
although he is registered to use medical marijuana.

As some of the comments point out . . . if he was on an opiate or big pharma pain killer instead,
he would still have his job.

It would be nice for WalMart to start following the medical cannabis acts in those states that have enacted it's prescribed use.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38002047/ns/business-local_business/

[MRoCkEd]

That should be WalMart's decision.

[Juan McCain]

That should be WalMart's decision.

To discriminate on an employee based on what a doctor prescribes . . . ?

No, employers do not make that decision for employees without legal challenges.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Why would he get a drug test after an injury? I would never work for a place that does random drug testing.

[dannno]

Walmart should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they want.. but they also shouldn't be subsidize by our government and our monetary system.. which means they should be a lot smaller. Since they are so highly subsidized by our government, I can see a reason for forcing those companies to follow these types of rules, but if we had a free market they should be able to discriminate for whatever they want.

Another government intervention that is causing this problem is forced worker's compensation insurance. The government forces WalMart to be responsible if their employees are injured.

In a free market, if WalMart wants to fire somebody who is completely able to do their job and makes a bad decision to let them go, let them do it.. That puts another able bodied person on the market for someone else to hire and benefit from their labor.

[dannno]

Why would he get a drug test after an injury? I would never work for a place that does random drug testing.

Actually random drug testing would be random, as in they ask you to test for no reason.

Nearly every place of business probably requires their employees to go take a drug test after they get injured for worker's compensation insurance reasons. The insurance companies require it.. but the companies are FORCED to get worker's compensation insurance, so it's totally BS.

[Kregisen]

Walmart should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they want.. but they also shouldn't be subsidize by our government and our monetary system.. which means they should be a lot smaller. Since they are so highly subsidized by our government, I can see a reason for forcing those companies to follow these types of rules, but if we had a free market they should be able to discriminate for whatever they want.

This should be every libertarian's stance, but sadly it isn't. Freedom of association.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Actually random drug testing would be random, as in they ask you to test for no reason.

Nearly every place of business probably requires their employees to go take a drug test after they get injured for worker's compensation insurance reasons. The insurance companies require it.. but the companies are FORCED to get worker's compensation insurance, so it's totally BS.

Ohh I see. Yeah, that's messed up.

[Juan McCain]

An employer that has already taken the leap of hiring or keeping someone with a brain tumor . . .

that employer should decide what treatment modality is acceptable to be used by the physician and that patient/employee outside of the workplace ?

[GunnyFreedom]

An employer that has already taken the leap of hiring or keeping someone with a brain tumor . . .

that employer should decide what treatment modality is acceptable to be used by the physician and that patient/employee outside of the workplace ?

If this were a truly free market, I could hire you today because I like people with big noses, and fire you next week because big noses make me nauseous. You have the choice of whether to work for a complete lunatic or not. On the other hand, in a free market if you could prove real damages (ie they lured you away from a pension and real job security only to go "buuuuuurn!" and fire you immediately thereafter) if you can prove damages you could win compensation.

The nanny-state cuts both ways, and neither of them is good for anybody.

[Juan McCain]

I can imagine most can reach their threshold at some level of discrimination.

f'r instance . . . woman.
If the employer feels there would be less work done / more off-time requests yadayadayada,
they should be able to not hire woman if they don't want to - for better or for worse.

[Kregisen]

I can imagine most can reach their threshold at some level of discrimination.

f'r instance . . . woman.
If the employer feels there would be less work done / more off-time requests yadayadayada,
they should be able to not hire woman if they don't want to - for better or for worse.

In a free society employers should be able to only hire women, only hire men, only hire blacks, only hire hispanics, only hire people under 5 feet tall, only hire good-looking people, and fire them whenever they want.

It's not possible to be a libertarian if you don't agree with this statement....it's as basic as they come.

[Icymudpuppy]

In a free society employers should be able to only hire women, only hire men, only hire blacks, only hire hispanics, only hire people under 5 feet tall, only hire good-looking people, and fire them whenever they want.

It's not possible to be a libertarian if you don't agree with this statement....it's as basic as they come.

If you are a sole proprietor, and you do not take any government contracts, you can legally discriminate in your hiring practices. Says so right here on my "Employee Rights" flyer I have to post in my workplace.

[Juan McCain]

. . . It's not possible to be a libertarian if you don't agree with this statement....it's as basic as they come.

I can agree with the statement as a minarchist all I'd want to, it is basic but it doesn't exist - it doesn't happen that way.

A corporate employer needs to be part of all medical decisions you undertake - if they want to -
and you should be on that employer's specified diet as well - if you know what is good for ya'

[MikeStanart]

Whatever the case, the guy will probably win based on the fact that he supposedly never came to work under the influence.

Oh, and having a brain tumor will definitlely help out with the jury.


I'm kinda on the fence on this one.

Partly because I think it was a total ass move by Walmart, but another part of me feels yes, Walmart should have the right to do whatever they please.

[Juan McCain]

. . . I think it was a total ass move by Walmart, but another part of me feels yes, Walmart should have the right to do whatever they please.

In general, I am not so sure that there is never any employee v. employer justice in a libertarian society.

Individual liberties of an employee while not on the job vs. the employer that can always do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants - I don't see it.

Anyway, here, present day law exists . . .
and regardless of what you think WalMart should be able to do in hiring and firing practices,
a jury or judge panel may get to decipher that law for WalMart to follow, which they claim they now follow.

I hope the guy wins his case.

[noxagol]

I work at wal-mart. If you are involved in an accident that requires a trip to a hospital, you get tested for drugs and alcohol (i think alcohol, not entirely positive). They do checks if they get a tip from someone or witness something that makes them question an employee. I don't know what the law says, but it is walmart policy that it be a drug free environment and marijuana is still classified as an illegal drug except when used medicinally.

Also, walmart makes really stupid decisions, for whatever reason.

[AmericaFyeah92]

In general, I am not so sure that there is never any employee v. employer justice in a libertarian society.

Individual liberties of an employee while not on the job vs. the employer that can always do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants - I don't see it.

Anyway, here, present day law exists . . .
and regardless of what you think WalMart should be able to do in hiring and firing practices,
a jury or judge panel may get to decipher that law for WalMart to follow, which they claim they now follow.

I hope the guy wins his case.

You sound like Chomsky. The employer is not infringing on anyone's rights by firing this guy, as stupid/intolerant as the decision may be

[FrankRep]

To discriminate on an employee based on what a doctor prescribes . . . ?

No, employers do not make that decision for employees without legal challenges.

Big Government to the rescue!

[Juan McCain]

You sound like Chomsky. The employer is not infringing on anyone's rights by firing this guy, as stupid/intolerant as the decision may be

After five years of employment, a vested employee may have some contractual rights which WalMart chose to ignore -
so stupid, intolerant and a violation of a legal right all seem possible.

Can they legally use a treatment modality prescribed for him as a grounds for termination ?

[FrankRep]

Can they legally use a treatment modality prescribed for him as a grounds for termination ?

Big Government vs. Free Market Capitalism

[Juan McCain]

Big Government vs. Free Market Capitalism

It seems more of a case of the state law to allow prescription of cannabis vs. the federal standard (which WalMart is relying on here).
Tort is usually a "state law controlling" sort of thing.

[micahnelson]

Walmart is a corporation and has a corporate charter.

Corporate Charters are issued by the government, and as such those who hold them must abide by certain rules.

The government must act in the interest of the maximization of individual liberty.

If Walmart was a sole proprietorship, it should be allowed to hire and fire on a whim.

Walmart chose to become a corporate entity.

In cases where the rights of a Corporate Person are running afoul of the rights of a natural person, then the natural person should win- all things being equal.

So, yes. Wrongful termination. You can't fire someone for following the legal advice of a doctor.

If walmart didn't want to be subject to employment rules, they shouldn't have established themselves as a government-sponsored person.

[RokiLothbard]

A group of people who wish to have limited liability must give up their freedom of association? Lots of posters on dailykos would agree with you. Ron Paul wouldn't. I'm disheartened that it's even an issue here.

[dannno]

A group of people who wish to have limited liability must give up their freedom of association? Lots of posters on dailykos would agree with you. Ron Paul wouldn't. I'm disheartened that it's even an issue here.

A group of people who obtain limited liability from the state rather than the free market might have to follow special state rules.. so don't obtain limited liability through the state if you want to freely associate!! Seems pretty reasonable to me.. but the problem, of course, is that whether you are a corporation or not, you don't get to freely associate.. so unfortunately what is being described is merely a fiction.. and of course our banking system discriminates against non-corporate entities probably due to state protections, so that would be another deciding factor..

I think we all agree that state interventionism has caused a huge mess.. but sometimes one state interventionism will discriminate against the majority of the people (workers), and so another state intervention is brought in to bring more rights back to the people.. this system is incredibly inefficient, but I don't know that I completely agree that not implementing the second state intervention to bring more rights back to the workers is worse than merely having the state intervention which discriminates workers.. What do you think?

[squarepusher]

boycott walmart!

[Bruno]

I don't think this has been addressed yet, but it is often problematic because testing for marijuana doesn't show if you were under the influence at the time, but rather within weeks or months of the test.

"Casias' drug test was given after he injured his knee at work in November, but the positive result on the urine test only indicated drug use in recent days or weeks, according to the lawsuit in Calhoun County Circuit Court. Casias said the injury had nothing to do with marijuana use; he simply stepped the wrong way."

[jkr]

boycott walmart!

:Dalready there brutha:eek: