Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.
California Supreme Court
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
- Leary v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Gonzales v. RaichSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- US Airways, Inc. v. BarnettSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' CooperativeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.