Marijuana in the Workplace

Useful Rulings on Marijuana in the Workplace

Recent Rulings on Marijuana in the Workplace

JASON HUTCHINSON VS GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.

In August 2019, a Google employee reported to Plaintiff that Tucker, another Google employee, had consumed marijuana gummies on the job on Google property. Plaintiff discussed the problem with Tucker. During their conversation, Plaintiff expressed his opposition to the use of marijuana while on the job and stated that it could be a criminal offense. In September 2019, Jennifer Chason (Chason), Google Cloud Enterprise’s Director, told Plaintiff that “Google has too many middle-aged white men.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTOPHER ALIGHIRE VS JOSE ANTONIO ALATORRE ET AL

The records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter within the two-day period surrounding the accident appear to be relevant to impeach Alatorre’s denial of marijuana use. Third, any records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter about use of marijuana in the workplace are relevant to whether Marina Shipyard negligently entrusted the vehicle at issue to Alatorre. The Court finds that this compelling interest outweighs any privacy interest by Alatorre.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

STEVE SNOECK VS EXAKTIME INNOVATIONS INC

Defendant states that “evidence was presented that Plaintiff was given a relatively positive performance evaluation at the end of 2016, and was also not previously terminated when it was discovered that he was smoking marijuana during a lunch break.” (Id. at p. 9:11-14 [citing (Marchlewski Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Trial Exhibit 21, Trial Transcript 6/17/19, 145:1-146:27; Trial Transcript 6/18/19, 121:4-122:19].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

STEVE SNOECK VS EXAKTIME INNOVATIONS INC

Defendant states that “evidence was presented that Plaintiff was given a relatively positive performance evaluation at the end of 2016, and was also not previously terminated when it was discovered that he was smoking marijuana during a lunch break.” (Id. at p. 9:11-14 [citing (Marchlewski Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, Trial Exhibit 21, Trial Transcript 6/17/19, 145:1-146:27; Trial Transcript 6/18/19, 121:4-122:19].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

NICOLE DEMARCO AND ROSARY DEMARCO

A “No MATCH” clause, whereby father shall not molest, annoy, threaten, contact, or harass her; includes coming to her home or workplace without prior agreement; exceptions are to be carved out for peaceful custody exchanges and communication through TalkingParents regarding Audrey. h. Guideline child support to be calculated following the exchange of necessary financial disclosures.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

BAILEY V. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.

Like the employer in Ross, KAISER has a drug-free policy (the “Workplace Policy”) that bans the use of marijuana by its employees. Section 5.6.2 of KAISER’s Workplace Policy states: When reasonable suspicion has been established to indicate an employee is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the employee will be asked, at the sole discretion of management, to provide breath, blood and/or urine specimens for laboratory testing . . . .

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

MILLER V. AUBURN LAKE TRAILS

Plaintiff opposes the demurrers on the following grounds: plaintiff’s complaints to defendant involved a co-employee’s illegal drug use of marijuana and “acid” impairment, which compromised the health and safety of other employees and community residents. Defendant replied to the opposition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2018

PETITION OF EL CAJON RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE

(r) Allow public and private employers to enact and enforce workplace policies pertaining to marijuana. (s) Tax the growth and sale of marijuana in a way that drives out the illicit market for marijuana and discourages use by minors, and abuse by adults. (t) Generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue annually for restoring and repairing the environment, youth treatment and prevention, community investment, and law enforcement.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANDUALEM ASEFFA ARAGAW VS GRAND PRIZE LIQUOR INC ET AL

“[A]lthough an adverse employment action must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment to be actionable, the determination of whether a particular action or course of conduct rises to the level of actionable conduct should take into account the unique circumstances of the affected employee as well as the workplace context of the claim.” (Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at 1052.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KILEY BLAND VS J PAUL GETTY TRUST

Merely inquiring of Plaintiff as to his use of marijuana at home does not sufficient for this element as a matter of law, as Plaintiff could simply refuse to answer the question. Complaint, ¶¶ 28 – 30. Moreover, Defendant’s evidence is that the only conversation Plaintiff had about marijuana was during the February 9, 2014 meeting with Segler and Sarish about his provision of the marijuana brownie to Boomgaarden while they were both on the Getty premises.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROSA ALICIA SILVA AND MANNY SILVA

Mother testifies that she has tried repeatedly to have communication with Adrian, but Adrian refuses; he also refuses to have contact with any of her family; in the past two months, father has dragged Adrian with him to her workplace, prior to a DCSS court hearing, where father refused to leave and cursed at her, in the front breezeway leading to their office, and in the view of patients; this resulted in her employer seeking a restraining order against father for workplace violence; restraining order was granted

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2017

THERESA BRYSON VS JASON LASSOR

However, Lisa M. refused to find that “sexual misconduct is per se unforeseeable in the workplace.” (Lisa M., supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 300.) In addition, several cases had found respondeat superior liability in nonsexual assaults. (See, e.g. Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 652 (assault by one employee against another was due to a workplace dispute); Rodgers v. Kemper Constr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WEIGAND VS. SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC AUTHORITY IHSS

Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, Deputy Sheriff Spencer shot and killed a man when serving a search warrant on an alleged marijuana ranch. "The Ventura County District Attorney conducted an investigation and issued a public report exculpating Spencer from criminal liability. The report, however, questioned the veracity of the search warrant affidavit and suggested that Spencer's primary motivation was to seize the property as part of a drug forfeiture.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WEIGAND VS. SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC AUTHORITY IHSS

Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1108, Deputy Sheriff Spencer shot and killed a man when serving a search warrant on an alleged marijuana ranch. "The Ventura County District Attorney conducted an investigation and issued a public report exculpating Spencer from criminal liability. The report, however, questioned the veracity of the search warrant affidavit and suggested that Spencer's primary motivation was to seize the property as part of a drug forfeiture.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.