Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Management
257 P.3d 586
Wash.2011Background
- Roe, a medical marijuana user, sues TeleTech for wrongful termination and for violation of Washington's MUMA.
- Roe obtained physician authorization and used cannabis at home; TeleTech’s policy required a negative drug test with no exception for medical marijuana.
- Roe was offered a TeleTech job, disclosed medical marijuana use, took a drug test, trained, but was terminated after a positive test.
- Lower courts held MUMA provides only an affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions and does not create private employment protections.
- The question is whether MUMA creates a private civil remedy or a public-policy basis for wrongful termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MUMA prohibit discharge for authorized medical marijuana use or imply a private remedy? | Roe argues MUMA protects employment and creates a civil remedy against private employers. | TeleTech contends MUMA provides only a criminal-defense framework and has no private employment rights. | MUMA does not prohibit discharge or imply a civil remedy against private employers. |
| Does MUMA establish a sufficient public policy to support a wrongful termination claim? | Roe contends MUMA embodies a broad public policy protecting medical marijuana use. | TeleTech argues MUMA lacks a public-policy mandate clear enough to support such a claim. | MUMA does not establish a clear public policy to support wrongful termination. |
| Do extrinsic sources (drafter statements, 2007 amendments, voters pamphlet) support implied protections? | Roe relies on drafters’ statements and later amendments to imply employment protections. | Court should not consider those extrinsic sources to extend protections beyond text. | Extrinsic evidence does not create implied employment protections or a public-policy exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183 (2001) (read initiative language in light of its context and intent)
- Duke v. Boyd, 133 Wash.2d 80 (1997) (legislative intent and plain language interpretation of amendments)
- In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wash.2d 795 (1993) (use of extrinsic evidence to interpret statutory language)
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 (1996) (four-element test for public policy wrongful discharge)
- Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219 (1984) (public policy exception to at-will employment)
- Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58 (2000) (public policy element requires clear, authoritative policy)
- State v. Hanson, 138 Wash.App. 322 (2007) (MUMA purpose as affirmative defense; not broad employment right)
- State v. Fry, 168 Wash.2d 1 (2010) (recognition of compassionate use and limits of MUMA)