The Supreme Court, 5-0, per Werdegar (who appeared to be toughest on the Defendants), affirmed the decision in Ragingwire on the basis that “simply does not speak to employment law.”  (Slip Op. at 14.)  That very may well be the case, but this doesn’t seem to confront the conflict of law issue that this case presents, other than to say that the Compassionate Use Act didn’t attempt to “do the impossible” by making marijuana on par with prescription drugs, but just meant to limit the effect of two state criminal laws. (Slip. Op. at 5.)

By now it’s on the back burner, but with the issue of DHS “no match” letters hanging over the workplace, some guidance about how the courts would rule when employers are caught in a federalism pincer maneuver would be helpful.

In case you didn’t notice, I’ve been taking a breather form the blog, and am still in the process of catching up from the holidays.

We’ll be back to the regular schedule soon.

I’m planning on putting together a comprehensive review of 2007, just like I did last year.  In the process of reviewing those cases and laws, and I wanted to do some evaluation (before I start looking at this year’s new bills).  I wanted to decide whether this was a good year for employers or employees.

After mulling it over, I’ve decided that it was a bad year for both.  No, I’m not saying that on some derivative of the theory that what’s bad for employers hurts employment, but, rather, the failure of the Courts to produce clear rules in some cases (though, obviously, not all), or to muddy some that were clear, has made it harder for employers to know how to comply and harder for employee to know what their rights are.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs down some of the new laws for 2008. . . and,
The Sacramento Bee discusses the new $8/hr. minimum wage.

I will have my 2007 wrap up on the site and podcast next week.

Happy New Year!