Jim Shore
Jim Shore is a member of Stoel Rives, LLP, where he works out of the Seattle office. Jim’s practice is exclusively focused on representing businesses and entrepreneurs in labor and employment law, with an emphasis on restrictive covenant/trade secret issues, unfair competition, traditional labor law (employer dealings with unions), harassment and discrimination litigation, assisting employers with day-to-day employment advice and policies, and issues related to corporate restructuring and acquisitions. Jim actively practices before federal and state courts and agencies throughout the western United States, and is an active member of the Washington, California and Oregon bars. Jim was named by Washington CEO Magazine as one of the top 10 labor and employment attorneys in Washington State, ranked as a leading Washington Labor and Employment attorney by Chambers USA (2008 and 2009), and by his peers as a Washington “Super Lawyer” in Washington Law and Politics Magazine. Jim is also “AV” rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Termination Where Medical Marijuana Use Caused Drug Test Failure
A Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that Washington’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”) does not protect medical marijuana users from adverse hiring or disciplinary decisions based on an employer’s drug test policy. Click here to download a copy of the Court of Appeals Decision in Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management.
Jane Roe (who did not use her real name because medical marijuana use remains illegal under federal law) sued Teletech for rescinding its employment offer after she failed a drug test required by Teletech’s substance abuse policy. She sought reinstatement and damages, alleging that she had been wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy since her marijuana use was legal under MUMA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Teletech, and Roe appealed.
The Washington Court of Appeals, Division II affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Roe’s case, stating, “MUMA neither grants employment rights for qualifying users nor creates civil remedies for alleged violations of the Act." Rather, the Court held that MUMA merely protects qualified patients and their physicians from state (not federal) criminal prosecution related to the prescribed use of medical marijuana. The Court further held that when Washington’s voters passed MUMA through the initiative process, they did not intend to impose a duty on employers to accommodate employee use of medical marijuana. The lawsuit and appeal, handled for the employer by Stoel Rives attorneys Jim Shore and Molly Daily, is likely to be further appealed by Roe to the Washington Supreme Court.
The workplace implications of medical marijuana continues to be a developing area. If your company has employees in any state allowing the use of medical marijuana under certain circumstances (including Washington, Oregon and California), you should review your substance abuse policies and make certain that all local human resources personnel and drug test administrators know whether the company will consider an exception for medical marijuana usage. Currently, Washington employers do not need to accommodate medical marijuana usage by making an exception to an otherwise valid substance abuse policy. However, because of court rulings in other states interpreting their states’ disability laws and advocacy groups’ continued attempts to expand medical marijuana rights, employers should continue to exercise caution when dealing with requests for disability accommodation involving medical marijuana. If such an issue arises, consider consulting with legal counsel.
