Walmart fires employee for medical marijuana.

[PieRsquare]

I don't have enough money to be picky. I shop at Walmart because I save a ton of money by doing so. Every dollar I save is one more I can use for something else I need.

I wish this guy luck in his case, but I don't think anyone is really going to stop using Walmart over this. If they do, they have more money than I do.

I've made the same runs to different stores. $100 at any other store will be $70 at Walmart. Sorry folks, I need that other $30.

A simple email to the Walmart Corporate offices would have told this guy that they don't honor MMJ, but continue their pee tests on a Federal basis. He really can't blame anyone but himself.

When he hired into Walmart, he knew they had pee tests. When he got his MMJ card, he should have checked it's status with Walmart through a neutral party that couldn't ID him to the store. Most lawyers have what is known as a "Callers Fee". They will make one phone call for you as your representative for X-dollars. He should have done so instead of relying on his guess that he was safe.

I mean no harm to the guy, but people who always blame someone else for their troubles piss me off. He gets the blame for this one. He should have checked. He didn't. He got busted.

Perhaps he'll check the next time. His very livelihood depends on it.

 

[Hick]

I'm pretty sure that Cali' has tried this in their courts, and (again pretty sure) that at least for now... MMJ does not protect you in the workplace.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer does not violate California's Compassionate Use Act—which provides a defense to state criminal prosecution for prescribed medical use of marijuana—by firing, or refusing to hire, an individual who tests positive for marijuana, even when the drug is being used for medicinal purposes. Employers should review their drug use and testing policies to make sure they clearly prohibit the use of any drug that is illegal under federal, state or local law.

hxxps://www.hrtools.com/legal_compliance/how_do_state_medical_marijuana_laws_impact_workplace_drug_testing_programs.aspx
I 'know' what co law states... we're seeing the same "grey" areas that ca has/is encountered.

The authors note that "The Act states that a qualifying patient "shall not be subject to any civil or administrative penalty, or denied any right or privilege" related to the medical use of marijuana, but it also explicitly provides that employers are not required "to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.'" This is similar verbiage to some other state laws. (Colorado: "Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place." Rhode Island: "...employers are not required to make accommodations for employees who use medical marijuana." Montana: "Nothing ... may be construed to require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace." )

hxxp://www.workerscompinsider.com/2010/01/the-current-buz.html

 

[AcesUp]

Sounds to me like his health insurance premiums were going up and Wally World found an "out".