Joseph Casias V. Walmart

Joseph Casias V. Walmart

In 2008, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act made provisions allowing legal usage of marijuana in the state to aid in the treatment of certain medical procedures. The Act declared that modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions. The conditions covered by the Act included Cancer, Glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis C, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gherig’s Disease), Crohn’s disease, Agitation of Alzheimer's disease, Nail patella, and certain other conditions that are classified as chronic or debilitating and fit a criteria for co-morbidities as defined (Michigan Legislature, Section 333.26422).

Also, in 2008, Battle Creek, Michigan resident Joseph Casias won an “Associate of the Year” award from Walmart, who was then his employer of five years (Shahid, 2010). For more than ten years, he’d suffered a debilitating and painful battle with an inoperable brain tumor and cancer. In order to deal with the painful symptoms of his condition, Casias’ physician had been prescribing him the opioid, Lorcet. The Hydrocodone product is known for providing relief in some patients, with nausea as a common side effect. For Casias, the pain relief did not adequately help with his pain, but the side effects that he experienced were severe (ACLU, 2015). Casias’ life collided with the Michigan Marihuana act, as in 2008 Joseph’s oncologist recommended that he try marijuana, as was now legally allowed in his state as a medical procedure that could be used by his doctors in the management of his condition (ACLU, 2015). Even though he fit and adhered to all provisions of the Act, followed the appropriate registration steps and began using the drug for his treatment after hours, and during off work hours, Joseph was fired from Walmart in 2008. For using marijuana, as allowed by Michigan law, he was relieved of the pain he’d lived with for over a year while also being relieved of his employment (Tahmincioglu, 2013).

“At Will” employment provides employers vast and rather undefined leeway when making decisions on if they will terminate a worker. In the case of Mr. Casias, as the CEO of the organization, I would likely have relied on information that I knew from experience with marijuana and my perception of what regular use could mean to an employee in my company. In 2008, the Medical Marihuana Act was still brand new, and the familiarity with its usage and how that affected the workplace had yet to be established. As CEO, I would have looked at what safety concerns would be associated with regular use of the drug, as Mr. Casias was employed in a role that included physical labor and during his