STATE COURT TO RULE ON EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS UNDER MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

The California Supreme Court is expected to rule for the first time
Thursday on whether the state's 12-year-old medical marijuana law
shields users from not only police and prosecutors, but also
prospective employers looking to fire over positive drug tests.

The court's opinion, scheduled to be released at 10 a.m., will center
on a discrimination claim by Carmichael resident Gary Ross over his
2001 firing from Sacramento telecommunications firm RagingWire. It
could either uphold users' rights, affirm employers' discretion or
leave the labor rights question to be answered by lawmakers or voters.

Whatever the outcome, legal observers and activists say the Supreme
Court's decision could have far reaching implications beyond
California, potentially affecting cases in many of the 11 other
states with medical marijuana laws modeled after California's
Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

"It's extremely significant; it's probably not only the most
important medical marijuana case in California, but in the nation
right now," Kris Hermes of the advocacy group Americans for Safe
Access told The Bee after the Ross case was heard before the state
Supreme Court last fall.

At the hearing in November, Ross' attorneys Stewart Katz of
Sacramento and Joseph Elford of San Francisco told six of the seven
justices present that the Fair Employment and Housing Act requires
employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for workers who have
disabilities. They said that Ross' use of marijuana was part of a
medical treatment for a disability.

Ross, 45, has been under a physician's recommendation to use the drug
to treat a longtime back injury he had sustained while in the Air Force.

Court documents state that he had notified RagingWire earlier about
his medical marijuana use but ultimately lost his job as a lead
systems administrator after he tested positive for the main chemical
found in cannabis.

RagingWire's attorney Robert M. Pattison argued that the state's law
continues to run afoul the federal Controlled Substances Act and
could consequently make employers vulnerable to disruptive searches
by federal agents.

He has also cited several of the arguments from the state's 3rd
District Court of Appeal, which ruled against Ross in 2005, noting
that drug use results in increased absenteeism from work, diminished
productivity and greater health care costs -- all legitimate
considerations for employers looking at job applicants.

On the eve of the Supreme Court's decision, Ross said he was nervous
about being the state's "test case" but felt optimistic about the
ongoing debate.

"It's a ton of pressure," he said. "Win or loose, I think we're doing
a lot of good."