Opinion ID: 2455719
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2007 changes to MUMA

Text: ¶ 21 In 2007, the legislature stated its intent to clarify the MUMA so that the lawful use of [medical marijuana] is not impaired.... Laws of 2007, ch. 371, § 1. The legislature added on-site to RCW 69.51A.060(4) so that it now provides, in relevant part, [n]othing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of employment. (Emphasis added.) Roe argues the 2007 enactment shows that the limits on workplace accommodation obligations set forth in I-692 were always intended to apply only to the on-site use of medical marijuana. ¶ 22 If a statute is ambiguous, we may look to the statute's subsequent history to clarify the original legislative intent. [6] State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 581, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). A new legislative enactment is presumed to be an amendment that changes a law rather than a clarification of the existing law, but the presumption may be rebutted by clear evidence that the legislature intended an interpretive clarification. State v. Elmore, 154 Wash.App. 885, 905, 228 P.3d 760 (2010) (citing Johnson v. Morris, 87 Wash.2d 922, 926, 557 P.2d 1299 (1976)). One indication a new enactment is a clarification is that the original statute was ambiguous. Elmore, 154 Wash.App. at 905, 228 P.3d 760. In contrast, an amendment generally changes an unambiguous statute. Id. ¶ 23 Even assuming the 2007 enactment clarified the rights and obligations created by the original initiative, the clarifying language does not support Roe's argument that MUMA provides employment protections for authorized medical marijuana users. The legislature's addition of the phrase on-site to RCW 69.51A.060(4) is redundant because the section already expressly disavowed any accommodation obligation in any place of employment. The addition of on-site did not make any material change in the section. Neither the original nor the current language of MUMA requires employers to accommodate an employee's off-site use of medical marijuana. ¶ 24 Roe claims using medical marijuana in her home in the evening allowed her to be productively employed the next day, acknowledging that the use of marijuana continues to influence a patient for some time after ingestion. One would expect any statute creating employment protections for authorized medical marijuana users might include exceptions for certain occupations or permissible levels of impairment on the job. Indeed, describing MUMA's alleged employment protections, Roe argues an employer only has a duty to accommodate an employee's off-site medical marijuana use if the employee's use would not affect job safety or performance. But nothing in MUMA suggests the drafters or voters considered such issues or contemplated the regulatory scheme suggested by Roe's proposed safety and performance exceptions. This statutory silence supports the conclusion that MUMA does not require employers to accommodate off-site medical marijuana use.