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.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree that the court ignored the actual issue of the case, but I guess now that they have ruled and there aren’t any more appeals, we might never get an answer (especially if the legislature simply amends the FEHA).
theoretically, might not the Labor Commissioner still be able take this as a 96(k) claim, what with the employee losing his job for engaging in a legal off-duty activity?