Walmart worker Joseph Casias, 29, can take heart from the fact that the company is highly “sympathetic” to his struggle with an inoperable brain tumor. The sympathy, however, did not prevent the company from firing him because he used legal medical marijuana to deal with the pain of the tumor.
Casias was fired in November from a Walmart store in Battle Creek, Mich., after marijuana was detected in a routine drug screening. He proceeded to show all of the records that he took the marijuana legally and there was never a complaint about his performance at work. He worked 12-14 hours a day.
Walmart spokesman Greg Rossiter told FoxNews.com “This is just an unfortunate situation all around.” Well a bit more unfortunate for Casias, wouldn’t you say? Rossiter add “We’re sympathetic to Mr. Casias’ condition, but like other companies, we have to consider the overall safety of our customers and associates, including Mr. Casias, when making a difficult decision like this.” So, this is a Walmart version of Reefer Madness.
Once again, I am not sure why Wal-Mart fights these fights (here) and reaffirms the global view of the company as one of the dark forces in the business world.
For the full story, click here.
Why does the Oscar Wilde come to mind:
“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”
(Some people like living in a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all world, it would seem.)
And that makes you not a sadist how exactly?
“In Washington state, “Jane Roe” was offered a position at TeleTech, upon completion of a negative drug test. Less than one week after she began working, her drug tests returned with positive results. Roe stated that her physician prescribed medical marijuana for her migraine headaches when other treatments offered little relief. TeleTech refused to provide any exceptions to their rule of a drug-free work environment and terminated Roe. Roe filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination and violation of the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”). The trial court dismissed Roe’s case. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer finding that MUMA provided only a defense against criminal prosecution for the possession of marijuana. The Court concluded that MUMA was not created to force employers to accommodate the use of marijuana, but only to provide a defense to criminal prosecution to qualifying marijuana users. Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management, Court of Appeals of Washington, No. 38531-7-II (9/15/09).”
“In an Eastern District of Washington case, Barber v. Gonzales, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37411 (2005), the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the ADA protected disabled individuals who used medical marijuana, despite the state law permitting the use of medical marijuana. Similarly, in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 920 (2008), an employee argued that he was wrongfully terminated after failing a drug test. The employee claimed that his employer failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. The California Supreme Court noted that marijuana is not treated the same as any legal prescription drug. The court held that despite the legality of medical marijuana under state law, it is illegal under the CSA and is not afforded protection under the ADA. The Montana Supreme Court recently reached a similar conclusion. The court held in Johnson v. Columbia Falls Aluminum Co., LLC, 2009 MT 108N (MT 2009), that an employer is not required to accommodate medical marijuana use even though a state law decriminalizes the use of medical marijuana.”
“Employers in all states should take heed to the issues that may be implicated from an employee’s use of medical marijuana. Regardless of the state laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires that employers provide a safe workplace. The ADA also does not require employers to accommodate a condition that may pose a threat or harm other employees.”
http://www.epspros.com/KNOWLEDGECENTER/PrescribedMarijuanaintheWorkplace/tabid/509/Default.aspx
eniobob – Thanks for posting the Seattle Times link.
And this also:
“Walmart announcement tells black people to leave store
An announcement at a Walmart store in New Jersey ordering black people to leave brought chagrin and apologies Wednesday from …
By BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. — A Walmart store announcement ordering black people to leave brought chagrin and apologies Wednesday from leaders of the company.
A male voice came over the public-address system Sunday evening at a store in Washington Township, in southern New Jersey, and announced: “Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now.”
Shoppers in the store said a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized. It was unclear whether a rogue patron or an employee was responsible for the comment, but many customers expressed their anger to store management.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011372410_walmart18.html
I, too, feel like I’m living in the Twilight Zone these days, but still hope (in my Pollyanna moments), that all is not lost. Crazy, I know…
anon nurse,
One lives to be of service. Thank you for the kind words. I am grateful to find that reason and compassion still hold some sway in a world where I fully expect Rod Serling to pop out of my closet at any moment and utter those words, “Submitted for your approval . . .”
Walmart may be a multi-billion-dollar company–but it is morally bankrupt…and terminally heartless.
Zero tolerance policies are put in place by companies like Walmart mainly to make firings such as this one excusable. So sorry…we can’t make any exceptions to the rules!
BIL – In this increasingly crazy and irrational world, I’m grateful for your voice of reason and compassion.
The above post was in response to posts by “Excited Wal-Mart Shopper”. Posts since removed, thankfully. That doesn’t change the validity of the above assertion.
Medical.
Necessity.
I suppose this person should have been fired if he was on chemo too.
This man’s medical treatment is legal in the state he is in.
“On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, by a 63% to 37% margin, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act was passed with the full support of voters in all 83 counties. The initiative called Prop 1 was sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care who gathered the required signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Additional support from the Marijuana Policy Project, NORML, MINORML, StoptheDrugWar.com and a number of medical associations educated and motivated Michigan voters to stand up for patients rights and individual liberty by rejecting the facticious rhetoric offered by self interested members from the law enforcement community.” from http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/node/12
Full text of the law is here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28zbfune45ii5rsoaklzokvjnz%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008
Yes. This is a country of laws – which incidentally include state laws. In Michigan, his treatment is not only legal, it’s legal specifically to help people in Mr. Casias’ situation. Unless you think depriving a terminal patient of a legal drug that fights nausea and pain is a good thing. Which would by definition make you a sadist.
Nice to see exactly what kind of person loves Wal-Mart. Those who think others medical care is their business. There is a word for that. “Busybody”. There are other less kind words too, but I’ll leave the adjectival modifiers for the sane readers to fill in with words of their choice. You know, choice. Like choice in legal medical treatment.
Many, many companies have a zero tolerance drug policy. These policies were put in place for “public safety”, not as a means of adding another branch of law enforcement. Either the use of marijuana presents a safety concern or it does not. The legality or legitimacy of such use does not eleviate the safety concern.
It sucks, but I don’t see how Wal-Mart had any choice. If they chose to ignore the reason for creating the drug policy, I think it would open them to a lot of law suits from previous employees who lost their jobs after testing positive.
another note, think Walmart should have to keep paying the employee under LTD as well as redirect the beneficiary under the LI policy that they most likely have on this man.
stacey,
As a company that probably has Life Insurance on this man and now has fired him for using MM. I think that they would have fired him for having the brain tumor as a safety measure for the company.
People with Brains can really do stupid. People with brain tumors can really be stupid. To wit, W, Rove, Cheney name em….
Stacey,
Under HIPAA, Mr. Casias’ health care and treatment are between him and his doctors and entirely his business. He had no duty to disclose this before the fact any more than he has a duty to disclose any treatment.
The more likely scenario is that since Wal-Mart basically self-insures their employees (in a substandard manner) that they didn’t want to pay for his medical care. This is not the first time they have acted this way . . .
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/02/wal-mart-backs-down-in-its-litigation-against-brain-damaged-former-employee/
Yeah Baby,
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z08zZ1xW9Yw&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
i sort of agree with wal-mart, although i certainly understand why he was using it. the problem lies in the fact that they can’t ascertain when it was used, therefore he could have been using it on the job. he should have been up front BEFORE the drug test. listen, when the drug test comes back, it will be positive because my doctor wrote me a prescription for marijuana and i used it off work hours” might have earned him some kind of credit but he waited until AFTER they found the marijuana to come up with the reason.
they fight these fighst because of a classically anti-Labor ideology that Nelson Lichetenstein traces from Sam walton’s variety stores to the present. they’ve done everything possible to avoid unions or compliance with the most basic labor laws, while also seeking tax breaks and outright subsidies from local governmentes and encouraging employees to go on various forms of public assistance. Sadly, no high profile media or even liberal interest group has been able to provide an effective response to their engaeing in corporate socialism while denying basic workers’ rights.
Not that I needed another reason to not shop at Wal-Mart, but, this will be added to the ever-growing list.