Arizona's new medical marijuana law protects qualified patients from discrimination by their employers, a progressive feature that sets it apart from similar laws in other states.

A legislative bill we told you about last month aims to dilute that protection, however, and it has solid support among state lawmakers.

The Patient Discrimination Act, is it might come to be called, gives employers immunity they don't need from lawsuits that might result from the firing or reassignment of a worker who uses medical marijuana or any other illegal drug. Introduced by Representative Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, and crafted by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, HB 2541 expands anexisting law that protects drug-testing employers from litigation.

The bill passed the House on Monday with a 56-3 vote.

At least the bill's latest version ditches the part about banning the use of medical marijuana in a "condominium or planned community common area that is open to use by the public." And, though Proposition 203 was the motivation for Yee's bill, it doesn't necessarily discriminate against marijuana: It would apply to any legal or illegal drug that might impair an employee.

Still, Yee's effort to please the state's employers clearly paints a big, green target on medical weed users. Employers would be immune from wrongful termination lawsuits as long as they had a "good faith belief" that the employee had used or possessed drugs, or was impaired, at a workplace or during work hours. It allows any worker suspected of ongoing "involvement with drugs" to be put on unpaid leave or reassigned, with no legal recourse.

It almost seems like this bill would entitle an anti-pot employer to mess with anyone believed to be carrying a medical marijuana card.

The voter-approved Prop 203 was never intended to allow impairment on the job, but defines the situation more narrowly than Yee's bill. No discrimination by employers is allowed "unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment."

(Source)