Medical marijuana can be usedunder approved circumstances in 15 states. On the federal level,the Justice Department says it will not prosecute permitted usersor raid medical marijuana dispensaries.

All good news for medical-marijuana users—until they attempt toget or keep a job. Because the courts, to date, have been clear:Employers have no obligation to accommodate medical marijuanause.

Since none of the state laws legalizing medical marijuana usecontain any language regarding employment discrimination, "everycourt ruling thus far on the matter has been positive foremployers," says Richard Meneghello, managing partner of Fisher& Phillips in Portland, Ore., a state where medical use ofmarijuana is legal.

Last year the Oregon Supreme Court ruled employers are notrequired to keep medical marijuana users on the payroll. In 2008 asimilar decision came out of the California Supreme Court. Mostrecently, a district judge in Michigan upheld Walmart's decision tofire an employee who was using the drug to alleviate symptoms ofcancer.

"Nothing has been found that limits the right of an employer tosay 'We don't want you,'" says Mark Stephenson, partner at theinsurance-focused law firm Nelson Levin deLuca and Horst.

(One potential twist is that the rulings so far have addressedonly private-sector employees, not public-sector workers, pointsout Robert Chadwick, of Campbell & Chadwick in Dallas.)

Beware of Pot Holes

Despite the law being on their side when it comes to hiring andfiring, employers are being advised to close all the doors leadingto any chance of liability that can surface from employing amedical marijuana user. Attorneys recommend employers revisitinternal drug policies, which should already be in place, to makesure intolerance for medical-marijuana use in the office isclear.

Should employers choose to keep a medical-marijuana user onstaff after finding out about usage, the employee becomes anenormous liability, the attorneys say. Plaintiffs won't look to thestate law; they will look at the federal law.

"If a forklift driver who uses is involved in an accident andhurts someone, you're on the hook. The risk associated withallowing a worker with medical marijuana in [his/her] system tostay at work is not a risk I would endorse taking," says Chadwick,a member of the Professional Liability Underwriters Society.

"There is a real tension happening here. There is no consensuson the issue of [marijuana-induced] impairment," addsStephenson.

Additionally, it is not known whether an insurer will cover theerrors and omissions of an employee under the influence ofmarijuana. "So employers need to be careful," Stephenson says.

Joint Action: States Stepping In

Those seeking protections for marijuana-using employees areattempting to deal with the setbacks in court by changing statelaw. Bennett Pine, chairman of Anderson Kill & Olick'semployment and labor group, says the judges who have heard thesecases have offered some guidance in their rulings for those seekingrelief.

"It seems [the courts] are saying that—as of today—employers areprotected, but to get the results you, the plaintiffs, are lookingfor, you have to seek to have the laws modified,'" Pine says.

And at least one state haspending legislation, and advocacy groups are stepping up theirefforts to secure legal protections.

California Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill(SB 129) this year meant to make it unlawful for an employer todiscriminate against a person based on his or her status as aqualified medical-marijuana user.

The bill would not make it illegal to fire an employee for useon the company's property. It also exempts certain professions,such as school bus drivers, health care providers andheavy-equipment operators, from protection under the proposedlaw.

Medical-marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access,which helped bring an appeal to the California Supreme Court, saysthe law in legalizing medical use was "never intended to forcelaw-abiding patients out of a job."

"Why must hundreds of thousands of Californians be denied theircivil rights, and be forced to live with the risk of losing theirjob, due to their choice of medication?" asks Don Duncan, directorof the group, in a statement after the bill was introduced.

The American Civil Liberties Union will appeal the Walmart casein Michigan for what it calls the wrongful firing of employeeJoseph Casias, who the ACLU says never used on the job and wasnever under the influence while working.

"The choice between adequate pain relief and gainful employmentis an untenable one that no patient should ever be forced to make,"ACLU staff attorney Scott Michelman says in a statement madefollowing the ruling.