Read the case ofRoe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management.
Review the facts, and the arguments of each party in the case.
The issue is:did TeleTech violate public policy? Did it wrongfully discharge Roe?
First:
Review section 18-2a concerning common law protections for wrongful discharge. Also, pay close attention to the language of the Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA).
As the judge, decide for one party or the other. State your reasoning. Go beyond reiterating the arguments given in the text. Also, don't rely on your instinct. Apply the law.
Second:
Consider what would you do ethically if you were TeleTech in this situation?
You Be the Judge Facts: The voters of Washington state passed the Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MUMA) which stated: illnesses is a personal, individual decision, based upon their physician's professional medical judg- ment and discretion. Qualifying patients and medical practitioners shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law for their possession and limited use of marijuana. Humanitarian compassion necessitates that the decision to authorize the medical use of mari- juana by patients with terminal or debilitating Copyrlghl 2019 (Engage Learnlng. All nghls Reserved. Inlay not be cnpled, scanned, or dupllealed, In whole or In pen. WON 01200-203 Any person meeting the requirements appro- priate to his or her status under this chapter shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for such actions. Nothing in this chapter requires any accommo- dation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of employment. Jane Roe suffered from debilitating migraine headaches that caused severe chronic pain, nausea, and blurred vision. Because other medications were not effective, she obtained a prescription for medical marijuana. It alleviated her symp- toms without side effects and allowed Roe to work and care for her children. She ingested marijuana only in her home. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. offered Roe a posi- tion as a customer service representative. Although she told the company about her medical marijuana use, it fired her for failing a required drug test. Roe sued TeleTech for wrongful discharge, alleging that her termination had violated public policy. (She filed suit under a pseudonym because medical marijuana use is illegal under federal law.) You Be the Judge: Did TeIeTtm viakrte puiirpaiizy swim it red Rot? Wm Mir dimimgc wrongful? Argument for Roe: Roe is exactly the sort of person this statute is intended to protect. Medical marijuana C HA PTE Fl 18 Employment and Labor Law 339 changed her lifenow she can hold a job and care for her family. But, of course, she cannot hold a job if employ- ers fire her for using this legal medication. TeleTech is undermining the statute and jeopardizing its clear poli- cies. A ruling in favor of TeleTech would inhibit other people from using medication that citizens voted to make available. Furthermore, the statute specifically states that, \"No person . . . shall be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, for such actions." Being fired is a substantial penalty. No one is asking TeleTech to tolerate drug-impaired workers. Marijuana should be treated like any other medicationit cannot be used if it hurts job performance. But there is no evidence that it did so. Argument for TeleTech: Just because medical mari- juana is legal in Washington does not mean that it is an important social right. Indeed, employers can fire work- ers for many {egg} behaviors, such as smoking, or being disagreeable. The purpose of MUMA is to protect doctors and patients from criminal liability, not to create an unlim- ited right to use medical marijuana. The statute does not explicitly prevent employers from banning its use. And how can marijuana use be an important public policy when it is still illegal under federal law? 182 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 182a Common Law Protections The common law employment-at-will doctrine was created by the courts. Because that rule has sometimes led to absurdly unfair results, the courts have now created a major exception to the rulewrongful discharge. Wrongful Discharge: Violating Public Policy Olga Monge was a schoolteacher in her native Costa Rica. After moving to New Hampshire, she attended college in the evenings to earn a U.S. teaching degree. At night, she worked at the Beebe Rubber Co. During the day, she cared for her husband and three children. When Wrongful discharge An employer may not fire a worker for refusing to violate the law. exercising a legal right, or supporting basic societal values. she applied for a better job at her plant, the foreman offered to promote her if she would go out on a date with him. When she refused, he assigned her to a lower-wage job, took away her overtime, made her clean the washrooms, and ridiculed her. Finally, she collapsed at work, and he red her. At that time, an employee at will could be fired for any reason. But the New Hampshire Supreme Court decided to change the rule. It held that Monge's firing was a wrongful dis- charge. Under the doctrine of wrongful discharge an employer cannot fire a worker for a bad reason, that is, a reason that violates public policy. Although the public policy rule varies from state to state, in essence, an employee may not be red for: refusing to violate the law, exercising alegal right, or supporting basic societalvalues. Refusing to Violate the Law. Courts have protected employees who refused to partici- pate in an illegal pricefixing scheme, falsify pollution control records required by state law, pollute navigable waters in violation of federal law, or assist a supervisor in stealing from customers. Not surprisingly, courts are particularly protective of the judicial process. Thus, employ ers are generally not allowed to fire workers for testifying truthfully in court. A patient at the Duke Hospital suffered brain damage after a doctor administered the wrong anesthetic. When nurse Marie Sides was called to testify in the patient's case against the hospital, a number of Duke doctors told her that she would be \"in trouble\" if she testified. She did testify, and after three months of harassment, she was fired. When she sued Duke University, the court held that it would be \"contrary to public policy and sound morality\" to allow an employer to re someone for refusing to commit perjury. Judges have also consistently held that an employee may not be fired for serving on a jury. Exercising a Legal Flight. Dorothy Frampton was injured while working at the Central Indiana Gas Co. After she led a claim under the state's workers' compensation plan, the company red her. When she sued, the court held that the gas company had violated public policy. Ifworkers fear that making a claim for workers' comp will get them fired, then no one will le and the whole point of the statute will be undermined. Supporting Societal Values. Courts are sometimes willing to protect employees who do the right thing, even if theyviolate the boss's orders. A company fired an armored truck driver because he disobeyed company policy by leaving his vehicle to help two women who were being attacked by a bank robber. A court ruled for the driver on the grounds that, although he had no affirmative legal duty to intervene in such a situation, society values those who aid people in danger. This issue is, however, one on which the courts are divided. Not all judges would have made the same decision. In the following case, an employee was red for exercising her legal right to use medical marijuana. Did her employer violate public policy
