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.
Awwww.
No.
It means there is an unresolved conflict between state and Federal law.
And that’s all it means.
Readers: Next time any of you see anyone making a claim like “His doctor prescribed MM”, give them a funny look and ask them if they know the law.
You see, a doctors ability to prescribe drugs is controlled by the DEA. Marijuana is one of those drugs that the DEA will not permit them to prescribe. That’s because ‘federally speaking’ marijuana is illegal. While doctors in Michigan are required to provide a diagnosis that the patient has one of the limited maladies that would permit the patient to, under state law, possess and use marijuana; the doctor does not prescribe the drug. That means no prescription. Period!
“two classes at the retail level”
Byron,
Have any of us sent him money. That’s just adorable.
Who is harmed in this instance? Mr. Casias.
Who would be harmed by a stoned cashier or stock person? No one. I was at the store (not Wal-Mart) today and my cashier was stoned out of his mind. My change was not only correct, it was counted back properly and the service was friendly. I’ll be going back to that store. So inability to stock or check isn’t really an issue in reality, is it? To be clear, Wal-Mart employees only two classes of employee that zero-tolerance should apply to in order to protect third parties from harm and those are pharmacists and pharma-techs. And guess what? Most state’s have provisions to deal with drug abuse in those professions.
“All I can say is I am glad I wasn’t the one making this call. Probably what I would have done is quietly put this guy on paid leave and kept him on the company insurance policy until his death or recovery at which time he could return to work.”
That’d be because you, despite your sometimes right-wing polyanna-ish view of capitalism, can not only spell “compassion” but are actually capable of it. But “corporate policy” sure does give a big rock to hide under, doesn’t it? And is that policy rooted in compassion or fear? Fear, by Wal-Mart’s own admission. Fear of what? Losing money to people they’ve previously screwed over, that’s what. It’s certainly not fear of customer’s being harmed. It’s fear of red ink.
When dealing with issues of quality of life for the terminally ill, a profit motive is simply inhuman and inhumane. Thus, once again, we see the sociopathic nature of raw capitalism.
Woefatcat,
“Why are we still finding THC bad when prescription drug abuse is far far more prevelant?”
Ask yourself who gets paid for prescription drug abuse and uses those funds to pay graft, er, lobby with. If Big Pharma could monetize marijuana, it’d be OTC. However, since it’s a weed and practically impossible to kill in nature? Who in their right mind would pay Pfizer for what they can grow in a window box?
Big Pharma is not the only enemy of decriminalization, but they are at the front of the pack for certain.
“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, “There it is. My Creation; perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest. [Gives shocked expression] Oh, my, Me! I left fuckin’ pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Hehe, that was the day I created the platypus. Hehe. But if I leave pot everywhere that’s gonna give people the impression they’re supposed to…use it. Now I have to create Republicans.” “…and God wept”, I believe is the next part of that story.” – Bill Hicks
Buddha/Duh:
I think you both have valid points. Hindsight is always 20/20 but maybe the guy should have gone to management and said hey is there some sort of waiver I can get to use MM. Explained that this was the only thing that gave him relief and then gone on from there. Maybe he could have been moved to a different position for as long as he was able to work.
This is a very hard case and it is easy to come down hard on Wal-Mart as they are a huge company and have deep pockets. But what if this was a small local company that had 50 employees and was owned by a local family, they had had the business for 50 years and over half the people had stock in that company. It provides a living for close to 200 people including family of the people who work there.
Something like this could put a small business out of business along with the livelihood they provide to their employees and their families. For a small company it would be a heart wrenching decision to have to make. I would not want to be the owner under these circumstances.
I cant say for sure but I imagine the manager was none to happy about what happened. But in a way it takes the burden of responsibility and guilt away from direct supervisors by having policies and procedures in place to deal with things like this.
The world is not perfect and this may seem heartless but what if because of a law suit or an unfortunate accident at work some innocent lost their job or were injured or killed because of this employee, then what?
All I can say is I am glad I wasn’t the one making this call. Probably what I would have done is quietly put this guy on paid leave and kept him on the company insurance policy until his death or recovery at which time he could return to work.
Not an easy decision to have to make and the people that are chastising Wal-Mart are rather harsh in their condemnation of Wal-Mart and others who have a differing view point.
One other thing, Wal-Mart has made a good many people rich and allowed many others to retire comfortably and they provide a decent value at a reasonable price for people of limited income. Could they do better, of course, but then couldn’t we all.
Has anyone here condemning Wal-Mart sent money to this poor unfortunate soul? I thought not.
So, if this guy were to have Oxyxodone in his test and he had a script for it, would he have been fired? From first hand experience I would trust someone smoking pot far more than someone gulping Oxy. Why are we still finding THC bad when prescription drug abuse is far far more prevelant?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Any answer other than Mr. Casias will disqualify you from Final Jeopardy.
Who is harmed here?
Can you answer that simple question?
Even bad comedy.
Repetition is a key element in comedy.
Let me submit a lesson in reading comprehension. Read it two or three times if necessary. You are welcome quote from the statement below to support your conclusion. You may notice that some past readers have avoided the use of quotations. The primary reason for doing so, is that their conclusion cannot be supported by any of the statements contained in the following two paragraphs.
“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.”
Come on.
Tell us again how poor old Wally World didn’t have a choice.
Because of their fear of lawsuits.
That’s funny. In a very pathetic way.
Evasion of lawsuits is not a good excuse for discrimination either.
The MMA is not retroactive. The company’s exposure runs from the date of enactment, not the beginning of time. And by all means let’s protect those Wal-Mart profits over, what’s that thing, TREATING A DYING MAN WITH DECENCY AND DIGNITY.
Wal-Mart had EVERY choice.
Their (and your) entire argument hinges on corporate policy.
No matter your wishful thinking, corporate policy isn’t the law.
Discrimination is simply that.
If he were just a casual stoner? Sure. No problem.
But Mr. Casias isn’t a casual stoner.
His doctor prescribed MM.
Next time you get ill, why not run your treatment plan in front of your employer. Don’t want to do that? Because it is an invasion of your privacy under HIPPA?
Then maybe you’ll better empathize with the dying man instead of sounding like just another fascist talking head.
So tell us all again how some corporate nitwit gets to tell people’s doctor’s what treatment they can administer.
Answer the question about sadism.
Don’t throw up a blog entry and an unpublished case. That’s hardly good evidence nor is it rational. All that proves is someone else has an opinion that matches your fascist sadism and enough time to blog. And an “unpublished case”? Well if it’s unpublished, where’d you get it? Hmm? An “unpublished case” from MONTANA might as well be bullshit on a shingle for a case IN MICHIGAN.
Why is the choice “treatment” or “employ”?
The man’s job does not put him in a position to endanger others. He was not smoking on company time. No one is harmed here but Mr. Casias.
Why should a corporate policy trump an individual’s right to legal medical treatment? It shouldn’t.
Is corporate policy valid law? No.
Are this man’s rights under HIPPA rights being violated by his being discriminated on based upon his treatment regimen, a treatment which is legal in the state of Michigan? Yes, they are. Wal-Mart has ZERO say in his medical treatment nor did they have a right to inquire before hand. In addition, given Wal-Mart’s pattern of denying coverage to ill employees, this is smells like nothing more than an end run to avoid taking a hit to their SELF-FUNDED health insurance.
Consistency in corporate policy is not the issue.
A corporate policy violating Mr. Casias’ right to a legal medical treatment absent an exigent circumstance like being a position where lives are on the line is the issue.
The bottom line is this: No lives are on the line except Mr. Casias. And you’d rather he suffer a degradation in his quality of life because some Wal-Mart douche bag doesn’t like “the weed” – a legal treatment in Michigan.
Corporate policy does not trump public policy. Unless you’re simply a fascist. By your “logic”, Wal-Mart could decide taking morphine is against corporate policy and fire every employee taking it for legal medical reasons too.
You cannot dig your way out of your stance being poorly thought out knee-jerk corporatist sadism.
All you’ve done is point to open questions from alien jurisdictions and blog entry.
AY said “First of all one needs to know how to comprehend. Even if they can read they may not understand what it means.”
Good point AY! Maybe you can tell me what this means.
“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.”
Michigan (MCLA 333.26427(c) (2)) specifically states: “Nothing in this act shall be construed to require … [a]n employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.” (Yes, the Michigan statute spells “marihuana” differently than do those of other states.)
One could argue, as did the dissenters in Raginwire, that such statutory language does not prohibit the accommodation of off duty, offsite ingestion that does not impair the performance of an employee’s duties. However, the decisions to date have not embraced this reasoning.
In sum, the case law can be anticipated to further develop but does not at this time support a conclusion that the applicable legislation was intended to impose express or implied duties on an employer to accommodate the use of medical marijuana even if the use is off duty and away from the workplace. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) imposes a “general duty” on employers to provide a safe workplace, which arguably supports excluding individuals who are deemed to be impaired by the use of marijuana.
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202445959314&Smokin_With_Reefer_Madness