June, 29 2010, 10:27am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Will Matthews, ACLU, (212) 549-2582 or
2666; media@aclu.org
Rana Elmir, ACLU of Michigan, (313)
410-5509; relmir@aclumich.org
ACLU Sues Wal-Mart On Behalf Of Cancer Patient Fired For Legally Using Medical Marijuana
Michigan State Law Passed In 2008 Protects Employees Who Use Marijuana To Treat Debilitating Diseases
BATTLE CREEK, MI
The American Civil Liberties Union and
ACLU of Michigan, in partnership with the law firm of Daniel W. Grow,
PLLC, filed a lawsuit today against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and the
manager of its Battle Creek store for wrongfully firing an employee for
using medicinal marijuana in accordance with state law to treat the
painful symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer.
The lawsuit charges that Joseph
Casias, 30, the Battle Creek Wal-Mart's 2008 Associate of the Year, was
fired from his job at the store after testing positive for marijuana,
despite being legally registered to use the drug under Michigan's
medical marijuana law. In accordance with state law, Casias never
ingested marijuana while at work and never worked while under the
influence of marijuana.
"Medical marijuana has had a
life-changing positive effect for Joseph, but Wal-Mart made him pay a
stiff and unfair price for his medicine," said Scott Michelman, staff
attorney with the ACLU. "No patient should be forced to choose between
adequate pain relief and gainful employment, and no employer should be
allowed to intrude upon private medical choices made by employees in
consultation with their doctors."
Casias has suffered for more than a
decade from sinus cancer and a brain tumor in the back of his head and
neck that was the size of a softball when it was first diagnosed. His
condition has forced him to endure extensive treatment and chemotherapy,
interferes with his ability to speak and is a source of severe and
constant pain. Nonetheless, he had been successfully employed for more
than five years by Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, where he began as an
entry-level grocery stocker in 2004 and worked his way up to inventory
control manager.
"For some people, working at Wal-Mart
is just a job, but for me, it was a way of life," said Joseph. "I came
to Wal-Mart for a better opportunity for my family and I worked hard and
proved myself. I just want the opportunity to continue my work."
In 2008, Michigan voters enacted the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which provides protection for the
medical use of the drug under state law. The pain medication Casias'
oncologist had previously prescribed for him provided only minimal
relief and as a side effect caused Casias to suffer from severe nausea.
After the law was enacted, Joseph's oncologist recommended that he try
marijuana as permitted by state law, and so Casias obtained the
appropriate registry card from the Michigan Department of Community
Health. The results were immediate and profound: his pain decreased
dramatically, the new medicine did not induce nausea and Casias was able
to gain back some of the weight he had lost during treatment.
"Joseph is exactly the kind of person
whom Michigan voters had in mind when they passed the state's medical
marijuana law," said Daniel W. Grow, a St. Joseph, Michigan-based
attorney. "Medical marijuana is legal in this state because voters
recognized its ability to alleviate the pain, nausea and other symptoms
associated with debilitating medical conditions, and no corporation
doing business in Michigan should be permitted to flout state law."
Michigan's medical marijuana law
protects patients registered with the state of Michigan from "arrest,
prosecution, or penalty in any manner" for the use of medicinal
marijuana as prescribed by a doctor and also protects employees from
being disciplined for their use of medical marijuana in accordance with
the law. The law does not require employers to accommodate the ingestion
of marijuana in the workplace and does not protect employees who work
under the influence of the drug.
The outcome of today's lawsuit, filed
in Calhoun County Circuit Court, could have ramifications beyond
Michigan.
"Today, 14 states and the District of
Columbia provide protections for patients who use marijuana as
recommended by a doctor," said Kary L. Moss, Executive Director of the
ACLU of Michigan. "This case will be closely watched by patients across
the country who rely on this medicine for pain relief and on their state
laws for protection against unscrupulous employers."
Lawyers on the case include Grow,
Michelman, Moss and Dan Korobkin and Michael J. Steinberg of the ACLU of
Michigan.
A copy of the today's complaint is
available online at: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/casias-v-wal-mart-complaint
Additional information about the
ACLU's work to reform drug laws is available online at: www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform
Additional information about the ACLU
of Michigan is available online at: www.aclumich.org
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular