Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 2008No. S138130Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KENNARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

Under this state’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5; hereafter the Compassionate Use Act), doctor-recommended marijuana use as a medical treatment *934is “not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(B).) In a decision conspicuously lacking in compassion, however, the majority holds that an employer may fire an employee for such marijuana use, even when it occurs during off-duty hours, does not affect the employee’s job performance, does not impair the employer’s legitimate…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Leary v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Gonzales v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. US Airways, Inc. v. BarnettSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
  5. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' CooperativeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API