Marijuana in the Workplace in California

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.

(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.

Plaintiff was involved in the security process of the marijuana licensing program where licensees submitted security plans that EMPD reviewed. (Id., 20:5-14.) At the time Plaintiff was reassigned to patrol duties, EMPD needed a patrol sergeant and City had already ended the marijuana licensing program. (Id., 38:7-39:2.) When the program commenced again in 2020, Reynoso gave the duties related to marijuana licensing to a different sergeant. (Id., 43:10-17.)

The evidence suggests Officer Koegel’s assessments were accurate as Petitioner admitted people at his workplace smoked marijuana and attributed his bloodshot and watery eyes, droopy eyelids, and a sedate or sleepy looking face to his allergies. (AR 8-10, 17.) Officer Koegel identified the “strong odor” of burned marijuana emanating from Petitioner’s care. (AR 17.)

The weight of the evidence supports Commission’s finding that Petitioner made a false statement at his interview when he “denied returning drugs to detainees except marijuana.” At his interview, Petitioner initially denied returning any drugs except marijuana and then, upon further question from Carrasco, admitted that he had returned methamphetamine a week earlier. (AR 526.) Petitioner’s initial statement about only returning marijuana was false.

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.

In Cardillo , two non-physician owners of a corporation that operated Kush Dr., a medical marijuana clinic, were criminally charged with practicing medicine without a license. (Id. at 494.) They asserted they only provided management services for the physicians who operated out of the clinic and wrote medical marijuana prescriptions. ( Id . at pp. 495496.)

The court orders that defendant shall not make reference to, or introduce evidence of, plaintiffs alleged use of cocaine or marijuana before plaintiffs employment with defendants began in August 2017. The court denies plaintiffs motion in limine no. 2 as to plaintiffs alleged use of cocaine or marijuana after plaintiffs employment with defendants began in August 2017.

KFH’s Drug-Free Workplace Policy defines “being under the influence” as an “impairment by alcohol or a drug...regardless of the level detected.” (UF No. 14; Ex. 7 to NOL [Drug-Free Workplace Policy NATL.HR.030].) Pursuant to the policy, a determination that an employee is “under the influence” can be established “by lay observations by supervisors, co-workers, or others.” (UF No. 15; Ex. 7 to NOL [Drug-Free Workplace Policy NATL.HR.030].)

“The express intent of the author of the legislation was to address the growing phenomenon in California of workplace violence by providing employers with injunctive relief so as to prevent such acts of workplace violence.” (Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 334, italics omitted.)

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.

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.”

Here, Plaintiff presents evidence that despite the stated marijuana policy, which as Exhibit I of Defendants evidence states that any employee who is found to be using drugs before or during work would be terminated, there were other employees who actively smelled of marijuana, were told to go home, and yet still remained employed by Defendant. (PUMF 78.)

County argues Plaintiff has no information to suggest that these persons were even aware that Plaintiff filed the workplace violence report relating to Nelson so she will be unable to present any evidence that their decisions were influenced by the workplace violence report against Nelson. Based on this, County argues the Court should grant the summary adjudication of the retaliation claim. Plaintiff responds that she filed a workplace violence report against Mr.

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.

"Moral blame" attached to Defendants conduct is presented by Plaintiffs evidence that Defendants did not protect minors but, instead, intentionally placed minor fans in close proximity to Lopez by hosting parties where alcohol and marijuana was consumed in order to promote THH. (PASF 62-66.) The policy factors weigh in favor for imposition of liability because a societal goal is to protect and safeguard minors from sexual abuse.

“Actionable harassment consists of more than ‘annoying or merely offensive comments in the workplace,’ and it cannot be ‘occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature.’” (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 940.)

App. 3d 187, 194 (overturning discharge of a tax representative trainee for marijuana possession because there was no relationship between possessing marijuana off the job and the duties of a tax representative trainee.). LACMA replies that Scagliotti could be terminated even if there is no nexus to his job duties.

This cause of action is based on C.C.P. section 527.8, which states, "Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces

(h) Examples of genetic discrimination in the workplace include the use of preemployment genetic screening at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which led to a court decision in favor of the employees in that case, Norman–Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (9th Cir. 1998) 135 F.3d 1260, 1269. (i) The State of California has a compelling public interest in realizing the medical promise of genomics.

It is not our role to engage in what would amount to a redrafting of [a] complaint in order to read that document as alleging conduct that supports a claim that has not in fact been specifically alleged , and then assess whether the pleading that we have essentially drafted could survive the anti-SLAPP motion directed at it. ( Medical Marijuana, supra , 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 621, fn. omitted, italics added.) ( Medical Marijuana, Inc. v.

Cochran concerns the death of an employee in a workplace fire; the business used and stored the highly combustible substance magnesium. Decedents husband and family based their lawsuit in part on the allegation that the city violated its mandatory duties under the municipal code to abate known hazardous conditions. In upholding summary judgment in favor of the city, the Cochran court cited Clayton, supra .

“Actionable harassment consists of more than ‘annoying or merely offensive comments in the workplace,’ and it cannot be ‘occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature.’” (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 940.)

It was entirely reasonable for Defendants to conclude that Plaintiff had engaged in a series of sexually inappropriate actions in the workplace.

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.

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1420)(emotional distress allegedly resulting from continuing pattern of workplace harassment based on sexual orientation).)

Because Human Resources took no action to protect Plaintiff when she complained about discrimination and retaliation, because her supervisors retaliated against Plaintiff, and because she was not allowed to move to another team, Plaintiff s workplace became intolerable and she had no choice but to resign her employment. (Ibid.)

Defendants must file and serve answers to the complaint by October 26, 2020. ____________________ * CBD stands for cannabidiol; it is essentially marijuana with the THC taken out. **Woo is a resident of San Diego County. (Complaint, ¶ 3.) ***Presumably Justice Dato meant "court." **** As the court held in the summary judgment context in San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v.

“[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.)

During this period, Petitioner provided CW with alcohol, nitrous oxide, marijuana, methamphetamine, and Xanax. (AR 751.) Petitioner also purchased CW alcohol at liquor stores and bongs at smoke shops. (Ibid.) Petitioner prescribed an asthma inhaler for CW on December 30, 2015 to soothe CW’s lungs after smoking marijuana and methamphetamine. Petitioner was not CW’s physician and Petitioner did not maintain medical records for CW. (AR 168-169, 751, 867-872, 1297.)

In the 8 th cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that on March 25, 2021, EDN, CKS, and Deloach fired Plaintiff in retaliation of him complaining of unsafe working conditions and requesting medical leave and treatment following battery at work by Vega during workplace hours. (Compl., ¶66.)

Moreover, plaintiff disputes the underlying allegations of misconduct, including yelling at a dog, mishandling a dog during a move, and being outside when another employee smoked marijuana during a break. The write ups for “lateness” all started after plaintiff was injured and after she was placed on medical restrictions by her doctor.

From a review of the allegations, these measures appear to have a rational relationship to the object of helping lower the risk of ongoing transmission at workplace establishments with active outbreaks. [See SAC, para. 74].

First, he brought and distributed marijuana edibles to a University-sanctioned event in Thailand. AR 1450. This act violated University policy for a drug free workplace. AR 1450.

Marijuana, Inc., supra, 46 Cal. App. 5th at 883 [the issues in an anti-SLAPP motion are framed by the pleadings].)

[Citation.]” ( Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 883.) Accordingly, the Court may only look to whether the photo actually published by Defendant, the photo upon which Plaintiff’s cause of action relies, is a matter of public concern. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has prevailed on the second prong as to the first cause of action. Defendant’s special motion to strike is GRANTED as to the first cause of action.

Marijuana, Inc., supra, 46 Cal. App. 5th at 883 [the issues in an anti-SLAPP motion are framed by the pleadings].)