help



join the cool folks
and advertise on aroundthecapitol.com

california political news & opinion
california legislation > SB 129

Microsoft Word version



SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session


SB 129 (Leno)
As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 5, 2011
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TW

FOR VOTE ONLY

SUBJECT

Medical Marijuana: Qualified Patients:
Employment Discrimination

DESCRIPTION

This bill would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis
of a person's status as a qualified patient (medical marijuana
user) or on the basis of the person's positive drug test for
marijuana, provided the person is a qualified patient and the
medical use of marijuana does not occur at the place of
employment or during hours of employment. This bill contains an
exception to the prohibition when an employer hires a person in
a safety-sensitive position, as specified.

This bill would create, for a person who has suffered
discrimination as described above, a civil action for damages,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, and any other
appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise
of the right or rights secured.

Finally, this bill contains a savings clause that states nothing
in the section shall prohibit the employer from terminating the
employment, or taking other corrective action against a person
who is impaired on the property or premises of the place of
employment or during hours of employment because of the medical
use of marijuana.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, the
(more)



SB 129 (Leno)
Page 2 of ?



Compassionate Use Act, "to ensure that seriously ill
Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for
medical purposes." Following passage of the proposition,
several issues arose, including the establishment of a qualified
patient's right to use medical marijuana outside the workplace.
SB 420 (Vasconcellos, Ch. 875, Stats. 2003), the Medical
Marijuana Program Act, was enacted to clearly prohibit the use
of medical marijuana by qualified patients on the property or
premises of any place of employment or during the hours of
employment. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 11362.785.)

In September 2001, Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled Air Force
veteran, was fired after failing an employer-mandated drug test.
He was using medical marijuana on his doctor's recommendation
outside the workplace and had informed his employer of that
fact. He sued for unlawful discrimination based on disability
under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial
court sustained a demurrer as to both causes of action. The
court of appeal affirmed, and upon further appeal, the
California Supreme Court ruled that: (1) nothing in the text or
history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters
intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties
of employers and employees; and (2) FEHA does not protect the
employment rights of persons who test positive for illegal drugs
(which includes marijuana under state and federal law). (Ross
v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920,
933.)

As a result of the Ross ruling, employers and employees alike
are uncertain as to what, if any, rights a qualified patient has
in maintaining a job that may require periodic marijuana
testing. In 2008, AB 2279 (Leno, 2008) attempted to clarify
this ambiguity by providing that an employee who is a qualified
patient cannot be fired from a job because of his or her status
as a qualified patient or for testing positive for marijuana.
AB 2279 also provided that an employee who is a qualified
patient cannot be discriminated against or penalized by an
employer for marijuana status or positive testing during the
hiring process. After passing both houses, AB 2279 was vetoed
by Governor Schwarzenegger who asserted that the bill would
interfere with employment decisions relating to marijuana use.
(See Comment 7.)

This bill, which is substantially similar to AB 2279, would
clarify the law regarding the employment rights of medical




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 3 of ?



marijuana users, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Ross v. RagingWire.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law , Proposition 215 of 1996, the Compassionate Use
Act, provides the individual right to obtain and use marijuana
for medical purposes where medical use has been deemed
appropriate and recommended by a physician because the person's
health would benefit from the use of marijuana in treatment of
cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana
provides relief. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 11362.5(b)(1).)

Existing law removes the criminal penalties for cultivation and
possession of marijuana by qualified patients, who are persons
with a physician's written or oral recommendation or approval to
use marijuana for medical use, or by their primary caregivers,
and protects physicians from punishment for recommending
marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. (Health & Saf.
Code Sec. 11362.5(b), (c) and (d).)
Existing law provides that employment having no specified term
may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the
other. (Labor Code Sec. 2922.)

Existing law provides that it shall be an unlawful employment
practice to discriminate based on race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental
disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or
sexual orientation. (Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA),
Gov. Code Sec. 12940 et seq.) FEHA requires employers in their
hiring decisions to take into account the feasibility of making
reasonable accommodations to a person with a disability or
medical condition. (Gov. Code Sec. 12940(a)(2).)

This bill would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate
against a person in hiring, termination, or any term of
employment or otherwise penalize a person, based on (1) the
person's status as a qualified patient or (2) the qualified
patient's positive drug test where the medical use of marijuana
does not occur on the property or premises of the employer or
during the hours of employment.

This bill would establish a civil cause of action by a qualified
patient who suffered discrimination for damages and injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other equitable relief to




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 4 of ?



protect the peaceable exercise of the right or rights secured.

This bill would not apply when the employer employs a person in
a safety-sensitive position, which would include: a position in
which medical cannabis-affected performance would clearly
endanger the health and safety of others, as defined; a position
involving carrying a firearm; or a position involving the
operation, maintenance, or dispatch of federal service vehicles.


This bill would expressly provide that an employer would not be
prohibited from terminating the employment of or taking
corrective action against a person who is impaired on the
workplace premises or who is impaired during working hours.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

On January 24, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled in Ross
v. RagingWire Telecommunications that an employee using
medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation as permitted
by California law may be fired solely because of their status
as a medical cannabis patient. SB 129 would make it unlawful
to discriminate in employment practices based on an employee's
legal use of medical marijuana outside the work place and not
during working hours.

In its ruling the California Supreme Court ignored the will of
the voters and the legislature by invalidating the rights of
over 250,000 patients to be free from discrimination in
employment. Most concerning was the fact that Gary Ross was
not employed in a safety-sensitive position, did not use
medical marijuana at the workplace, and was not under the
influence of marijuana at work. In essence, the Court said
that Ross could be fired simply because of his status as a
patient using doctor recommended medication.

In denying Ross certain protections from employment
discrimination, the High Court did invite the legislature to
clarify its intent with respect to the employment rights of
medical cannabis patients.

SB 129 will provide the clarification requested by the Court




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 5 of ?



and reverse a decision that puts every medical cannabis
patient in jeopardy of losing their job without due cause. By
amending the Health and Safety Code to prevent discrimination
against patients in hiring, termination, or any term of
employment, except in the case of safety-sensitive positions,
SB 129 clearly establishes that medical marijuana patients
have a right to work. This bill does not require an employer
to accommodate marijuana impairment or use in the workplace,
and does not require the employer to violate any state or
federal laws.

The policy of this state should be to encourage gainful
employment for those patients who are able to work. In
addition to being an issue of basic human fairness, medical
marijuana patients who lose their jobs could become an
additional burden for state general assistance, MediCal, and
other social service programs that are already stressed by
chronic funding shortages. SB 129 is a reasonable solution
that protects patients, employers, and public safety.

2. The Compassionate Use Act and federal law remain in
conflict

This bill would provide clarity to the conflict currently
existing in California law between California employers and
employees regarding the ability of employees to utilize the
provisions of the Compassionate Use Act. California voters
enacted the Compassionate Use Act in 1996 in order to permit the
use of marijuana for medical purposes by persons deemed
qualified by their physicians. Marijuana was then, and still
is, an illegal drug both under federal and state law, and its
use, possession, distribution, cultivation, or sale carries
criminal penalties. However, under federal law, possession of
marijuana, even by medical users, continues to be a crime: the
federal Controlled Substances Act provides that, except as
provided, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or
intentionally?to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or
possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a
controlled substance. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a).) The only
exception provided in the Controlled Substances Act for
marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug, is for its use in
government-controlled research projects.

Lawsuits filed by the United States against "medical cannabis
dispensaries" have resulted in the complete rebuke of efforts by
supporters of medical marijuana use to create a "medical




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 6 of ?



necessity" exception to the Controlled Substances Act's
prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana.
(United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative et al.
(2001) 532 U.S. 483, 491-485.)

Proponents of this bill, however, contend that federal law does
not stand as an obstacle to SB 129, as further discussed in
Comment 4b.

3. Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc: FEHA does not
provide protection to medical marijuana users at work


This bill would provide protections for California employees who
qualify for medical marijuana under the provisions of the
Compassionate Use Act. In Ross v. RagingWire
Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, the California
Supreme Court revisited the ballot arguments proffered by
supporters of Proposition 215 (the initiative that enacted the
Compassionate Use Act) and declared that "İn]othing in the act's
text or history indicates the voters intended to articulate any
policy concerning marijuana in the employment context, let alone
a fundamental public policy requiring employers to accommodate
marijuana use by employees." (Id. at p. 932.) Further, the
court said, an examination of the ballot arguments did not put
defendant employer (and other employers) on notice that
employers would thereafter be required under FEHA to accommodate
the use of marijuana. (Id.)

Gary Ross, the Ross plaintiff, also contended that the
Legislature's passage of SB 420 that enacted Health and Safety
Code Section 11362.785 evidences the legislative intent of the
Compassionate Use Act to require employers to accommodate
employees' use of medical marijuana at home. That section
provides:

Nothing in this article shall require any accommodation of any
medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any
place of employment or during the hours of employment or on
the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility,
or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside
or persons under arrest are detained. (Health and Saf. Code
Sec. 11362.785(a).)

Answering plaintiff's argument that Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.785 at least inferred a requirement of
accommodation under FEHA, the court said, "İe]ven without




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 7 of ?



inferring a requirement of accommodation, the statute can be
given literal effect as negating any expectation that the
immunity to criminal liability for possessing marijuana granted
in the Compassionate Use Act gives medical users a civilly
enforceable right to possess the drug at work or in custody?In
any event, ?we do not believe that Health and Safety Code
section 11362.785, subdivision (a), can reasonably be
understood as adopting such a requirement silently and without
debate." (Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., supra,
42 Cal.4th at p. 931.)

4. SB 129 would prohibit discrimination in employment based on
status as a medical marijuana user

This bill would protect California employees using medical
marijuana during non-working hours from discrimination by
employers on the basis of the employee's status as a qualifying
patient. Under existing law, the Compassionate Use Act does not
require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the
property or premises of any place of employment or during the
hours of employment, or on the property or premises of any jail,
correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in
which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained.
(Health and Saf. Code Sec. 11362.785.) Proponents read this
provision as current law prohibiting use of medical marijuana by
qualified patients at the workplace or during working hours.

Based on the Court's holding in Ross v. RagingWire that Health
and Safety Code Section 11362.785 does not infer that an
accommodation under FEHA is required, this bill would create a
standalone statute prohibiting discrimination in employment
based on status as a qualified medical marijuana user or on the
basis of a positive marijuana drug test when use of marijuana
occurred outside the employment workplace or during non-working
hours.

a. Discrimination on the basis of status

SB 129 would prohibit an employer from discriminating against
a person in hiring, termination, or in any term or condition
of employment, or otherwise penalizing a person on the basis
of that person's status as a qualified patient (medical
marijuana user).

Gary Ross and other medical marijuana users are protected
under the Compassionate Use Act because the voters decided, in




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 8 of ?



passing Proposition 215, to disagree with Congress' assessment
that marijuana has a "high potential for abuse," that it lacks
any "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United
States," and that it lacks "accepted safety for use?under
medical supervision." (Id. at p. 927, citing 21 U.S.C. Sec.
812(b)(1) and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 14.)
Instead, the voters viewed the possibility of beneficial
medical use of marijuana as sufficient basis for exempting
from criminal liability under state law patients whose
physicians recommend the drug.

Proponents contend that it does not make sense to allow a
person to use medical marijuana to control pain, for example,
and be immune from criminal liability, just to be deprived of
the opportunity to work and be self-supporting because the
Compassionate Use Act did not mention employment law in the
findings and declarations that precede the Act's operative
provisions. And since it was the California Supreme Court's
view that the follow up legislation, SB 420, did not clearly
state legislative intent to protect the employment rights of
medical marijuana users, SB 129 is the author's and
proponents' response to the call for clarity.
b. Discrimination on the basis of positive marijuana drug
test


Under SB 129, an employer also may not discriminate against a
qualified patient who tests positive for marijuana, as long as
the medical use of marijuana does not occur on the premises of
the place of employment or during the hours of employment.

FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of
illegal drugs. (Ross v. RagingWire, supra, citing Loder v.
City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846). In Loder, the
California Supreme Court concluded that an employer can
require prospective employees to undergo testing for illegal
drugs and alcohol and an employer can have access to test
results, without violating California's Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act. (Civil Code Sec. 56 et seq.) Thus,
the Loder court declared that employers may deny employment to
persons who test positive for illegal drugs and confirmed in
Ross that FEHA was unavailable as a source of protection for
the employment rights of medical marijuana users.

Proponents contend, however, that except for the federal 1991
Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act that requires
employers to test all workers who apply for or currently hold




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 9 of ?



"safety sensitive" positions in the transportation industry,
there are no state or federal laws that require private
businesses to have drug testing programs. Even the 1988
Drug-Free Workplace Act that requires companies with federal
contracts in excess of $25,000 to show they have made
appropriate efforts to maintain a drug-free workplace does not
require drug testing of job applicants or current employees.
In fact, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union, "Drug
Testing: A Bad Investment" (September 1999) states that while
no court has held an employer legally liable for not having a
drug testing program, employers have incurred substantial
legal costs defending their drug testing programs against
workers' claims of wrongful dismissal.

Proponents argue that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act does
not place any general obligation on employers to drug test
their employees, much less to fire them for a positive drug
test for marijuana (citing Parker v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
(S.D. Ga. 1993) 818 F.Supp. 345, 347), but acknowledge that
under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act,
regulations of the federal Department of Transportation do
require employers to drug test employees in safety sensitive
positions and to remove them from such positions if they test
positive for the illegal use of drugs.

SB 129 would provide that no employer may discriminate against
a qualified patient who tests positive for marijuana use, so
long as the medical use of marijuana occurs outside the
property or premises of work or during non-working hours. In
other words, a worker who is a medical marijuana user may use
it anyplace but work and anytime but working hours. The only
question left would be whether the use of medical marijuana
impairs the ability of the employee who is a qualified patient
to perform his or her work. That question is resolved below.

c. No protection from employment discrimination if employee
is impaired because of medical use of marijuana

This bill contains a savings clause that states nothing in
the section shall prohibit an employer from terminating the
employment of, or taking other corrective action against, a
person who is impaired on the property or premises of the
place of employment or during hours of employment because of
the medical use of marijuana.

With this provision, the author and proponents are cognizant




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 10 of ?



of the possible effects of marijuana on the performance of an
employee, and thus provide employers with the right to
exercise their business judgment in taking corrective action
when that employee is impaired and cannot function at an
acceptable level.

It should be noted that the employer's prerogative to drug
test for illicit drugs to determine whether an employee is
impaired due to drug use is applicable to all employees, not
just to those who are impaired due to medical marijuana use,
and that the employer's right to exercise business judgment
in taking corrective action, including termination, applies
to all employees.

d. No prohibition against discrimination on the basis of a
positive drug test for marijuana where employment is for a
safety sensitive position


The protection established by SB 129 for a person who tests
positive for marijuana where the medical use of the drug
occurs outside of the employment premises or during nonworking
hours would not be available in "safety sensitive" jobs. As
described in the federal Omnibus Transportation Employee
Testing Act, these safety sensitive jobs originally were those
associated with aviation, railroad, and mass transportation
employees.

Under this bill, a "safety-sensitive" position means a
position in which medical cannabis-affected performance could
clearly endanger the health and safety of others, and shall
have the following general characteristics:

Its duties involve a greater than normal level of
trust, responsibility for, or impact on the health and
safety of others.
Errors in judgment, inattentiveness, or diminished
coordination, dexterity, or composure while performing
its duties could clearly result in mistakes that would
endanger the health and safety of others.
An employee in a position of this nature works
independently, or performs tasks of a nature that it
cannot safely be assumed that mistakes like those
described above could be prevented by a supervisor or
another employee.
A "safety-sensitive" position also includes a position that
involves the performance of a "safety-sensitive function,"




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 11 of ?



which is specified as described in:

(1) Section 655.4 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations:

Operating a revenue service vehicle;
Operating a nonrevenue service vehicle,
when required to be operated by a holder of a
commercial driver's license;
Controlling dispatch or movement of a
revenue service vehicle;
Maintaining (including repairs, overhaul,
and rebuilding) a revenue service vehicle or
equipment used in revenue service, with exception
for specified employers; and
Carrying a firearm for security purposes.

(2)Section 13951(d) of the Government Code, the
following law enforcement personnel: every district
attorney, municipal police department, sheriff's
department, district attorney's office, county probation
department, and social services agency, the Department of
Justice, the Department of Corrections, the Department of
the Youth Authority, the Department of the California
Highway Patrol, the police department of any campus of
the University of California, California State
University, or community college, and every agency of the
State of California expressly authorized by statute to
investigate or prosecute law violators.

In short, employers hiring for all of the above jobs may not
only require drug testing but also refuse to hire or take
adverse employment action against a person who tests positive
for marijuana, even if the person is a qualified medical
marijuana user whose use of medical marijuana occurs any place
but the work location or any time but working hours.

However, under this bill, an employer would still be prohibited
from discriminating against the above "safety sensitive"
employees or potential employees on the basis of the person's
status as a qualified patient, i.e., a medical marijuana user.

5. Civil action for damages based on discrimination against
qualified patient

This bill would establish a civil action for a person who




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 12 of ?



suffered discrimination prohibited by the bill, i.e., for a
qualified patient (a medical marijuana user), to seek damages,
injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and
"any other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable
exercise of the right or rights secured."

Under the state's employment discrimination laws, an employee
may file a complaint of unlawful employment practice with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) or seek relief
directly in superior court for wrongful termination or adverse
employment action. Filing a complaint with the DFEH has the
advantage of a state agency investigating allegations of
discriminatory action by the employer and getting the benefit of
the state agency's findings before going to court pursuant to a
right to sue letter issued by the agency.

6. Opponents' concerns

Opponents of this bill raise numerous concerns with this bill.

a. Proposition 19

Opponents contend that this bill is similar to Proposition 19,
the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (Act).
Opponents argue that "this bill seeks to usurp the voice of
the voters. . . . In November 2010, the voters overwhelmingly
rejected Proposition 19, which would have provided marijuana
users with similar protections in the workplace." The Act
would have made marijuana use and possession legal, as
specified, "İp]rovided, however, that the existing right of an
employer to address consumption that actually impairs job
performance by an employee shall not be affected." (Prop. 19,
Sec. 11304(c).) The Act failed to pass, with 53.5 percent of
California voters voting against passage and 46.5 percent
voting in favor of passage. In response, the author argues
that the voters rejected legalizing marijuana for non-medical
use, but they did not indicate a change in support for the
legal use of medical marijuana in accordance with state law.
This bill does not authorize employees to use or possess
medical marijuana at the workplace but rather provides an
exemption to employee protections under this bill if medical
marijuana use occurs on workplace property or during the hours
of employment.

b. Effect on California employers with federal contracts or
grants





SB 129 (Leno)
Page 13 of ?




Opponents also maintain that this bill is in direct conflict
with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act, which they claim
"requires federal contractors and grantees to provide a drug
free workplace, which includes implementing a policy that
prohibits the use or possession of marijuana." The Drug-Free
Workplace Act requires employers to notify employees that "the
unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession,
or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the
grantee's workplace" and that actions may be taken against
employees for violating this prohibition. (U.S.C., tit. 41,
sec. 702.) In response, the author argues that other states
with medical marijuana protections, i.e., Arizona, Maine, and
Rhode Island, have not reported losing federal contracts as a
result of these employment discrimination protections. As
discussed in Comment 6a, this bill does not authorize
employees to use or possess medical marijuana at work, and
exempts from protection under this bill an employee's use of
medical marijuana at the workplace. Federal regulations
regarding use and possession of medical marijuana at work
still would apply.

c. Chilling effect on employers

Opponents assert that under this bill "an employer could smell
the odor of marijuana and observe the employee's red eyes . .
. İh]owever, the employer would have to wait to do anything
until the employee showed clear signs that the marijuana was
affecting or 'impairing' the employee's performance. The
subjective nature of the term 'impairment', coupled with the
private right of action . . . for any alleged violation, would
make employers hesitant to take any action until there was
objective evidence of impairment, such as an industrial
accident or injury." In response, the author argues that this
bill does not require employers to do anything unprecedented.
This bill provides an exemption to employee protections if the
employee is impaired at work. If marijuana odor and red eyes
are observed, the employer should investigate whether the
employee's work performance is impaired rather than
potentially mistake marijuana odor and red eyes as evidence of
the employee's medical marijuana use.

The California Hospital Association (CHA) has similar concerns
regarding the impairment provision in this bill. "While CHA
is sympathetic to the needs of patients who use medical
marijuana, hospitals are in a very different role when faced




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 14 of ?



with an applicant who has tested positive for marijuana use.
Patients, health care workers and our communities expect
hospitals to screen out applicants who may appear for work in
an impaired state. Requiring hospitals to hire individuals
who have tested positive for marijuana use undermines their
ability to ensure the highest quality of care. ? The question
of whether an employee is 'impaired' is fact specific and the
law requires employers to have probable cause before seeking a
drug test." Staff notes that although impairment is one
exemption to the protections provided to qualified patient
employees under this bill, persons involved in the delivery of
health care also may fall within the more general definition
of safety-sensitive positions excluded from the scope of SB
129.

d. Exemption of safety-sensitive positions

Opponents raise concerns that the exemption to exclude medical
marijuana users from safety-sensitive positions is too narrow
and subjective, rendering the exemption useless to employers.
"Specifically, a position is considered 'safety-sensitive' and
exempt from the protections of SB 129, only if (1) it requires
a 'level of trust and responsibility' higher than normal; (2)
a 'clear' risk of health and safety to others is created if
there are errors in judgment, inattentiveness, diminished
coordination, or composure; and (3) the employee works
independently or performs work where mistakes cannot likely be
prevented by a supervisor or other employeeİs]. "As such, the
opponents believe the safety-sensitive exemption would lead to
differing opinions between employees and employers as to which
positions would fall under the safety-sensitive exemption. In
response, the author argues that rather than provide a
detailed list of professions that would qualify as
safety-sensitive positions and inadvertently omit critical
positions that should be exempt from the provisions of SB 129,
the bill provides a list of considerations to be used in order
to determine the safety-sensitive nature of the position.

7. Governor's veto of AB 2279

This bill is substantially similar to the enrolled version of AB
2279 (Leno, 2008). In vetoing AB 2279, the governor stated:

This bill attempts to shield qualified medical marijuana
patients employed in non safety-sensitive positions from
employment discrimination. However, I am concerned with




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 15 of ?



interference in employment decisions as they relate to
marijuana use. Employment protection was not a goal of the
initiative as passed by voters in
1996.


Support : American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Communities United
Institute; California Public Defenders Association; Crusaders
for Patients Rights; Drug Policy Alliance; Law Enforcement
Against Prohibition; Lawmen Protecting Patients; National
Lawyers Guild; National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws; San Francisco AIDS Foundation

Opposition : Agricultural Council of California; Air
Conditioning Sheet Metal Association; Air-conditioning and
Refrigeration Contractors Association; Apartment Association,
California Southern Cities; Associated General Contractors;
CalChamber; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs;
California Association of Bed & Breakfast Inns; California
Association of Health Facilities; California Association of
Joint Powers Authority; California Attraction and Parks
Association; California Chapter of the American Fence
Association; California Chapters of the National Electrical
Contractors Association; California District Attorneys
Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Fence
Contractors' Association; California Fraternal Order of Police;
California Grocers Association; California Hospital Association;
California Hotel & Lodging Association; California Independent
Grocers Association; California Landscape and Irrigation
Council; California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing,
Heating and Piping Industry; California Narcotic Officers'
Association; California New Car Dealers Association; California
Peace Officers Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; California Retailers Association; California State
Sheriffs Association; Engineering Contractors' Association;
Flasher Barricade Association; International Faith Based
Coalition/Forces United; Long Beach Police Officers Association;
Marin Builders' Association; National Federation of Independent
Business; Orange County Apartment Association; Riverside
Sheriffs Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association;
Take Bake America Campaign; Western Electrical Contractors
Association


HISTORY




SB 129 (Leno)
Page 16 of ?




Source : Americans for Safe Access

Related Pending Legislation : None Known

Prior Legislation : See Background.


**************