Jump to content

A Federal Judge To Hear Arguments In Medical Marijuana Case

Ms Chocolate

By Ms Chocolate
in The Michigan Justice System

Recommended Posts

Ms Chocolate Advanced Member

Ms Chocolate

Posted
Posted

Judge to hear arguments in medical marijuana case

 

Sarah Hulett (2010-11-11) http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/0/1/1724634/Michigan.News/Judge.to.hear.arguments.in.medical.marijuana.case

 

DETROIT, MICH. (Michigan Radio) - A federal judge in Grand Rapids will hear arguments tomorrow in a suit challenging the firing of a medical marijuana patient.

 

Joseph Cassias was fired from a Walmart in Battle Creek a year ago after he tested positive for marijuana.

 

Dan Korobkin is an attorney for the ACLU who's representing Cassias. He says employers from across the country are watching the case.

 

"There are 14 states in the country that allow for the use of medical marijuana, and the patients who use medical marijuana shouldn't have to choose between gainful employment and treating their painful conditions," said Korobkin.

 

Attorneys for Walmart are asking the court to dismiss the case.

 

Contact sarahhu@umich.edu © Copyright 2010, Michigan Radio

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

How is it in Federal court? How does it get back into State court? How can the Fed court dismiss a MI case? Reporting, so far, on this case has been horrible.

It's in federal court because the plaintiff probably filed in federal court based on a federal issue as far as their theory of recovery. It can't just "get back" into state court. It probably never was in state court to begin with. The only way it could be kicked out of federal court in favor of state would be if there were jusridication problems in federal court.

 

I don't know what is going on in this case because I haven't read the pleadings but my guess would be that the plaintiff's attorney decided federal court was the best place for it. There are many reasons for choosing federal court if you are in a position to be able to choose. One reason is politics. In general a federal court is less political because the judges are appointed for life and not subject to elections. Therefore they don't have job security to worry about when deciding contoversial issues. If the circuit court in your area is known for deciding against plaintiffs on similar issues then you may want a different court.

 

It sounds like the defendants have filed a 12b6 motion which is a motion for summary disposition for failure to state a claim. In other words walmart would be arguing, "yes we did fire him but we were well within our rights to do so." If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff that won't mean the plaintiff will ultimately win it will only mean that the court feels there are triable issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/walmart_worker_fired_for_using.html

 

Walmart worker fired for using medical marijuana to appear in federal court in Grand Rapids

Published: Friday, November 12, 2010, 10:05 AM Updated: Friday, November 12, 2010, 10:45 AM

 

John Agar | The Grand Rapids Press

 

GRAND RAPIDS -- A former Walmart worker who says he was wrongfully fired for using medical marijuana after work will be in federal court this afternoon on the retailer's motion to dismiss the case.

 

Joseph Casias, who worked at the Battle Creek store, used medical marijuana to treat symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union, its Michigan chapter and attorney Daniel Grow are representing Casias, the store's 2008 Employee of the Year.

 

Casias, 30, did not use marijuana at work or work under the influence, his attorneys said. He tested positive for marijuana last year and was fired despite being legally registered to use the drug under the state's medical-marijuana law.

 

"After Michigan voters enacted the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act in 2008, Casias' oncologist recommended he try marijuana as permitted by state law since the drugs Casias had previously been prescribed provided only minimal relief and caused severe nausea," the ACLU said.

 

The ACLU will oppose Walmart's efforts to dismiss the case. It also wants the case remanded to state court where the lawsuit was originally filed.

 

Walmart said that like many employers, it has a policy prohibiting the use of illegal drugs, and said that the ACLU's "interpretation of the law puts employers between a 'rock and a hard place.'"

 

It cited federal drug laws that prohibit possession and cultivation of marijuana. It said the state medical-marijuana law does not regulate employers, and said Walmart is concerned about customer and employee safety.

 

Casias, who worked five years at Walmart, was tested for drugs after a workplace accident.

 

The hearing is at 2 p.m. before U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker.

 

E-mail John Agar: jagar@grpress.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hofner67 Advanced Member

hofner67

Posted
Posted

It's in federal court because the plaintiff probably filed in federal court based on a federal issue as far as their theory of recovery. It can't just "get back" into state court. It probably never was in state court to begin with. The only way it could be kicked out of federal court in favor of state would be if there were jusridication problems in federal court.

 

I don't know what is going on in this case because I haven't read the pleadings but my guess would be that the plaintiff's attorney decided federal court was the best place for it. There are many reasons for choosing federal court if you are in a position to be able to choose. One reason is politics. In general a federal court is less political because the judges are appointed for life and not subject to elections. Therefore they don't have job security to worry about when deciding contoversial issues. If the circuit court in your area is known for deciding against plaintiffs on similar issues then you may want a different court.

 

It sounds like the defendants have filed a 12b6 motion which is a motion for summary disposition for failure to state a claim. In other words walmart would be arguing, "yes we did fire him but we were well within our rights to do so." If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff that won't mean the plaintiff will ultimately win it will only mean that the court feels there are triable issues.

 

Grand Rapids Paper says it was initially filed in state court and that the ACLU wants it remanded back there.

 

How did it get in Federal Court?

 

"And that he ACLU will oppose Walmart's efforts to dismiss the case. It also wants the case remanded to state court where the lawsuit was originally filed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

Grand Rapids Paper says it was initially filed in state court and that the ACLU wants it remanded back there.

 

How did it get in Federal Court?

 

"And that he ACLU will oppose Walmart's efforts to dismiss the case. It also wants the case remanded to state court where the lawsuit was originally filed."

Right. See my comment just above yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

Medical Marijuana Patient Fired by Wal-Mart Gets First Day in Court

Friday, 12 November 2010 11:26 Mike Meno Latest National News

 

Washington, D.C.--(ENEWSPF)--November 12, 2010. Today a federal judge in Michigan will begin hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed on behalf of Joseph Casias, the legal medical marijuana patient who was wrongfully terminated by a Battle Creek Wal-Mart because he tested positive for marijuana during a drug screen.

 

Casias, 30, is a husband, father of two, and 2008 store Associate of the Year, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and sinus cancer that is now in remission. His outrageous firing last year for using a state-legal, doctor-approved medicine to ease his pain garnered widespread media coverage and led MPP and others to call for a national boycott of Wal-Mart.

 

Casias is being represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and its Michigan chapter. According to the Battle Creek Enquirer, today “Casias’ attorneys will ask the court to deny a motion filed by Wal-Mart seeking dismissal of the case and reject the company’s attempts to have the case tried in federal court instead of state court.”

 

Casias’s firing violates the “Michigan Medical Marihuana Act,” which MPP helped pass in 2008 and reads in part that a qualifying patient shall not be “denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to … disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana.” Under the law, the definition of “medical use” contains “internal possession”— having marijuana in one’s system. The law does not require employers to allow the “ingestion of marihuana in any workplace” or employees to work while under the influence, but there has been no allegation that Casias used marijuana at work or worked while impaired.

 

“Joseph is exactly the kind of patient Michigan voters had in mind when they passed the [Michigan Medical Marihuana Act],” read an ACLU statement when the lawsuit was first filed. “We’re asking the court to not allow Wal-Mart to punish Joseph for merely taking refuge from his pain, and using marijuana as allowed by state law. Corporations should never be allowed to force patients to choose between their health care and their job.”

 

 

 

Source: mpp.org

 

 

Just a bit more information on the happenings.... waiting to see a result of the hearing that is going on today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

the plaintiff is represented by the ACLU and the ACLU wants it remanded back to where it was initially filed, State Court.

 

The plaintiff does not want it in federal court, according to the article.

Yes, I understand that. What it will come down to is the jurisdictional aspects of the case. Any party has a right for it to be in federal court if there is a federal question. Like I said, without reading the pleadings I don't know what law the plaintiff is claiming the defendant violated but his claims will but what are used to ultimately decide jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rashore Advanced Member

Rashore

Posted
Posted

This article helps shed a little light... not a lot, but some...

Law.com article

 

Maybe since other states have er, sort of failed on the state level, but the companies mentioned probably aren't all over the place... And walmart is all over the effing nation in all sorts of states, and depending on the plea.. Maybe this is a federal level issue....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DLD420 Advanced Member

DLD420

Posted
Posted

It's in federal court because the plaintiff probably filed in federal court based on a federal issue as far as their theory of recovery. It can't just "get back" into state court. It probably never was in state court to begin with. The only way it could be kicked out of federal court in favor of state would be if there were jusridication problems in federal court.

 

I don't know what is going on in this case because I haven't read the pleadings but my guess would be that the plaintiff's attorney decided federal court was the best place for it. There are many reasons for choosing federal court if you are in a position to be able to choose. One reason is politics. In general a federal court is less political because the judges are appointed for life and not subject to elections. Therefore they don't have job security to worry about when deciding contoversial issues. If the circuit court in your area is known for deciding against plaintiffs on similar issues then you may want a different court.

 

It sounds like the defendants have filed a 12b6 motion which is a motion for summary disposition for failure to state a claim. In other words walmart would be arguing, "yes we did fire him but we were well within our rights to do so." If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff that won't mean the plaintiff will ultimately win it will only mean that the court feels there are triable issues.

It was filed in Circuit Court in Battle Creek, Walmart filed to have it taken to the Federal Court, because he is breaking federal law. The ACLU is representing Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StonedPlanet Advanced Member

StonedPlanet

Posted
Posted

It was filed in Circuit Court in Battle Creek, Walmart filed to have it taken to the Federal Court, because he is breaking federal law. The ACLU is representing Joe.

Yep. The ACLU wants it back into state court because Walmart is required to follow the laws for the state in which they operate. Good tactics for the defense - you would expect your lawyer to do the same!

 

All I can say is Joe should be a billionaire after what Walmart is dragging him through!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...