United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Colorado Supreme Court: Employers can fire for off-duty pot use
Source:
The Denver Post
URL Source: http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana ... ms-lower-court-rulings-medical
Published: Jun 15, 2015
Author: Alicia Wallace
Post Date: 2015-06-15 14:23:07 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 14223
Comments: 80
Lawyer for Dish Network employee fired after using medical pot to treat muscle spasms calls ruling "devastating". Brandon Coats, right, with his mother Donna Scharfenberg sitting by his side, Sept. 30, 2014. The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday affirmed lower courts' rulings that businesses can fire employees for the use of medical marijuana — even if it's off-duty. The 6-0 decision comes nine months after the state's highest court heard oral arguments in Brandon Coats' case against Dish Network. Coats, who had a medical marijuana card and consumed pot off-duty to control muscle spasms, was fired in 2010 after failing a random drug test. Coats challenged Dish's zero-tolerance drug policy, claiming that his use was legal under state law. The firing was upheld in both trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals. DOCUMENT: Colorado Supreme Court affirms ruling When the case went to the state Supreme Court, legal observers said the case could have significant implications for employers across Colorado. They also noted that the ruling could be precedent-setting as Colorado and other states wrangle with adapting laws to a nascent industry that is illegal under federal law. As such, the question at hand is whether the use of medical marijuana — which is in compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment — is "lawful" under the state's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute. That term, the justices said, refers to activities lawful under both state and federal law. "Therefore, employees who engage in an activity, such as medical marijuana use, that is permitted by state law but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute," Justice Allison H. Eid wrote in the opinion. The justices said the court will not make a new law. Current Colorado law allows employers to set their own policies on drug use. Coats' attorney Michael Evans, of Centennial-based The Evans Group, called the decision "devastating." "For people like Brandon Coats, there really isn't a 'choice,' as MMJ is the only substance both he and his (Colorado-licensed) physicians know of to control his seizures due to his quadriplegia," Evans said. "He has to have it. " A silver lining of the decision, Evans said, is that it provides clarity in a "scary, gray area" of state law. "Today's decision means that until someone in the House or Senate champions the cause, most employees who work in a state with the world's most powerful MMJ laws will have to choose between using MMJ and work," Evans said in a statement. Six of the seven justices decided on the case. Justice Monica Marquez recused herself because her father, retired Senior Judge Jose D.L. Marquez, was on the Court of Appeals panel that upheld Coats' firing. Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver, said the justices' decision comes as no surprise. "It's easy to make too much of this decision," he said. "It really comes down to interpreting this one word in this one statute." As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court got it right, he said. But for Coats and medical marijuana advocates, this is a blow, Kamin said. Coats was a "dream plaintiff" in that marijuana served as medicine, he said. Coats was rendered a quadriplegic by a car accident and used marijuana to control leg spasms. The cause likely would land in the hands of the state legislature, Kamin said. "I think (Coats') case is very sympathetic, and I think his case would be quite compelling before the legislature," Kamin said. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-7) not displayed.
.
.
.
#8. To: Pericles (#2)
But that's the problem with alcohol and drug dependency. It DOES leak over to the job place. Either by loss of sleep, hang over and eventual 'lunch time' breaks. 60 mins did a piece on Detroit auto workers taking their 90 min lunch at a local abandoned parking lot. Drinking beer and smoking pot and then heading back to the assembly line. So think of that the next time someone 'forgot' to put in an airbag in your car because they were drunk or stoned or BOTH! Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Many employers reserve the right to fire an employee for any reason -- including drinking after the close of the business day. Furthermore, one company legally fired an employee for divorcing her husband without company approval. The employee was terminated for reasons of “moral laxity.” You can sue anybody for anything,but WTF do these people think they are,the offspring of Hitler and Stalin? Companies and corporations HIRE people,they don't buy them to own. That crap is un-Constitutional . Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No choice at all they will go on unemployment/welfare/food stamps before they give up the doobie. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I can see this with some occupations,but for a guy that answers phones for Dish Network?????? Where is the justification for that? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He's all in for immorality so he doesn't care. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
If Federal law prohibits it, then the answer apparently is yes. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Hmmmm....well, not quite. A judge ruled you can't sue the NSA for secretly spying on you unless you prove you're being secretly spied on.
The writer asserts the court based its decision on existing Federal law not current Colorado state law. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Anybody and everybody on welfare is living on the public dime,and should be required to take drug tests as a condition to keep their free housing,food,medical care,and monthly checks. Anyone found testing positive or that gets convicted of a crime should also lose any and all welfare benefits,and any parents whose children are arrested more than once for crimes should lose their welfare benefits also. Want to get those out of control kids under control,I guarantee you the way to do it is threaten to take away all of mama's "free stuff". Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You communists have infiltrated us. Here are more examples of your commie goals that are in the congressional record from 1963. More proof besides the fact that you support a commie for president. More proof besides the fact that you think babies are ok to snuff out. Like most all liberals do. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." . Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
We should check the SS takers also? Or people on govt pension like you? Also, we have the presumption of innocence. Testing people in safety jobs is common sense.
So? They will rise of fall based on job performance. In the Mad Men era I know for a fact lots of high powered execs were all drunk by lunchtime.
Companies set standards and apply them to all employees. We did that in the Army...even the cooks have to take a PT test and shoot their rifle. Where common sense comes in though is if pot is considered a prescription drug, the company should consider the script. If an employee is taking Oxycodine three times a day they will come up hot on a urinalysis too. How do they handle such if job performance decreases but viewed as a necessity to treat the patient? Something to consider. Another thing to consider is maybe these employers know a bit more than we do on how medical pot is used for just about any ailment under the sun. Thinking they know something. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Most don't look at this from an employers perspective as well. If someone owned a business would they want pot users and drunks working for them? We have to remember people who run businesses have to make payroll. The larger ones use a zero tolerance because it's hard to herd a bunch of cats. They also know somewhere a dealer is working the employee network to find new users. We don't get those nasty details in these articles. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Yes but did the employee come clean he was using medical pot? Apparently no. In the company I work in if someone self reports they get them help and don't fire them. If you wait until you are caught you are gone.
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
You watch too many bad Hollywood series on cable.
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
My pension is from a private mutual fund... it's not paid by taxes. I'm retired LE, I can be convicted of killing 100 libtards and I'd still get my pension mailed to me. I EARNED MINE BY PAYING INTO IT. The people you support don't pay for shit... they just leach, and their catalyst IS YOUR SYMPATHY. I find it utterly amusing that you defend a generational lazy persons welfare check, where they never paid a dime into anything that funds their EBT card... and you attack A WORKER THAT INVESTS IN THEIR PENSION and gets paid from that mutual funds proceeds. That's the mark of a super liberal. You've never fooled me. You are as libtarded as KILLary. Btw... Welfare isn't a constitutional right... you shouldn't have the "presumption of jack shit" to recieve it. You want your handout? GET TESTED. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Welfare is en ENTITLEMENT. Social Security is WELFARE. So is MEDICARE. It is in the constitution: "promote the general Welfare".
I am not a communist you cretin,and I have no interest in "infiltrating" you despite your homosexual dreams,so quit dreaming. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
We should check the SS takers also? People on SS are not "takers". Or at least the white Americans aren't. They have worked and paid into the system for over 50 years before they start drawing the money out they have paid into their retirement system a month at a time. I realize this does not apply to illegal aliens or minorities who are automatically given SS disability when they ask for it because government workers are afraid of being fired if they refuse to pay them. Or people on govt pension like you? He's not on a pension. He is on a retirement plan he has paid into. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Dish Network ain't the army. Nobody is going to go into their phone center and snatch up talkers to go out to climb ladders to install sat dishes. Most of the people who take and keep those jobs are probably handicapped and can't work regular jobs,so that's why they are there. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
HorseHillary! You have clearly watched to many Nancy Reagan "Just say NO!" advertisements. I have never seen or even heard of a pot dealer that had to go out and troll for new customers. It works the other way. The customers have to go out and find a dealer. AND.......,companies HIRE employees,they don't buy slaves. In a free country employers have no say about what their employees do while not working as long as it doesn't adversely affect the performance or safety while on the job. Getting stoned doesn't have any negative affects. You are high for a short time,and when you get up in the morning to go to work you are 100 percent sober and don't even have a hangover. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You are full of Obama. The SS Trust Fund DOES fund welfare for people like you who are not white or American and who refuse to work,but the money comes from the Americans who work and pay into it. So is MEDICARE. No,it's not. If you were an American you would know this. It is MEDICAID that is welfare,not Medicare. It is in the constitution: "promote the general Welfare". ROFLMAO! You just learned a bunch of words,and don't understand what any of them mean. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Does that apply to all legal substances or does your employer pick and choose what you can ingest on your own time? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
We don't get those nasty details in these articles. If I suspect they have I kick them off my jobsite and let the owners deal with them. In fact just yesterday they had to get the Sheriff involved to find where this one guy was living cause it wasn't where he put on his application. When they found out they went and got back the company van which only had about 1/2 the tools it was supposed to have in it, so the guy won't be getting a termination paycheck if he doesn't find those missing tools. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Take it easy pete there is a lot he doesn't understand, other than what his handlers tell him.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
No, you are correct Pete, Dish network is not the Army, but it is an organization. Most organizations have standards and policies it wants all its employees to adhere to. As CZ82 pointed out a week or two ago even Apple Inc. and Google, two of the leftist behemoths, have a zero tolerance drug policy. They test their employees. They may support medical pot and recreational pot use politically, but not for their employees. But that is par for the course as libs are inconsistent. I guess Apple Inc. and Google just want their competition high, stoned and drunk. Good for their Bizz. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Yet standards of employment are set by the employer. When I entered the job market near my military retirement I struck up conversations with some employers and headhunters. I asked them why they asked so many questions about daily routines to applicants. They all stated that one of the biggest problems employers have is a younger work force showing up to work on time and staying in the job location. They said it was good to get military folks to apply because they knew most military had the discipline to show up on time or early for the job. Believe it or not, that was a priority concern for employers. They link late nights doing drugs and drinking alcohol to the reasons people cannot show up on time for work. Not only drug/alcohol testing for all these companies but a thorough credit check and criminal background check. Talk about prying into a person's background. You might say "what does someone's credit have to do with someone who answers phones?" Good question but these companies seem to know indicators. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
It does. For they know people abuse even legal prescription drugs. The military hit this issue a few years ago and did a lot to clean it up. They kept giving wounded warriors pain meds at one facility then move them to another, and prescribe the same pain meds. So you have this wounded warrior with REAL physical pain with a drawer full of horse pills and some started to self medicate. Some got hooked and learned how to 'shop'. A couple of smart Army pharmacists brought this to the attention of medical authorities and a strict poly pharma program was introduced. Each medical center and military post increased their physical medicine and pain clinics and expanded physical therapy to enhance a more holistic approach to pain management other than just pumping them with prescription drugs. Some of these wounded warriors will have pain for life. Drugs of any kind are not the only and not the long term solution. So yes, my company looks at prescription drug abuse and can know from the initial drug screening and random checks they do. Two Soldiers I knew who would have life long pain to manage found that Tai Chi and yoga helps them. They told me the first step in leaving drug dependency is to stop making excuses and feeling sorry for themselves. There is a lot to be said about the right mental and spiritual mindset. We are not just physical 'beings.' Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
"At Will" The Corporate Hive can fire anybody for anything. No cause? No problem. Just manufacture "perception" issues and Hasta La Vista Mr./Ms. "Tea Bagger".
"At Will" The Corporate Hive can fire anybody for anything. No cause? No problem. Just manufacture "perception" They can and will do it until they do this to someone who has a close relative that is a good lawyer. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Doubtful. "At will" means exactly what it says. With or without cause. Although those who manufacture "perception" might also be well advised to learn the definition of Defamation - because they might find themselves under oath where pulling opinions and "feelings" out of their arse means less than having substantiated FACTS.
Be interesting to see how this Navy Chaplain's complaint turns out: www.breitbart.com/big- gov.../11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian- persecution/ His situation is a good example of how "progressives" cooperate like social wolves hunting their prey.
www.breitbart.com/big- gov.../11/naval-chaplain-files-formal-complaint-over-christian- persecution/ Bad link. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I was thinking more along the lines of tobacco, alcohol, guns (not to ingest, of course), etc. Back in the day when I cared about such things, some Texas companies refuse to hire or employ after the policy was adopted, any tobacco users (cigar, cigarette, snuff, chaw, et al). And it was legal to make such things a condition of employment. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
In the Army no one is allowed to use any tobacco products inside installation buildings or in public places. Like most work places, there is a designated smoking/chew/chaw area. Well some corporations know the most time wasted at work are during smoke breaks and internet goof off time. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
If the money in the SS account belongs to the person who is drawing it, isn't it supposedly earned? Isn't that what SS is supposed to be about? Of course, since SSDI is easy enough defrauded, I can see where you are going with this. SSRI is supposed to be funded from your contributions, so I see little reason to test a retiree for a plant addiction when they earned the money they are being paid back (after all, SS really is the GrubberMint forcing you to loan them money then give it back to you at a diminished return). By the way, I am in no way endorsing SS, just stating obvious facts.
No, SS is an entitlement. http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/business-and-finance/your-social- security/social-security-is-an-entitlement.html Social Security Is an Entitlement Q: It really gets my goat when I hear politicians refer to Social Security as an entitlement. I worked all my life and paid Social Security taxes all my life. How can they call that an entitlement? A. They can call it that because Social Security is an entitlement — literally. And I think you've got to blame popular culture, not politicians, for abusing the term. Social Security is an entitlement in not only the literal but also the legal sense of the term. Social Security is Title II of the Social Security Act. Medicare is Title XVIII — and other programs make up other titles of the Social Security law. So that's where the root word "title" comes from. Once you meet all the qualifications for Social Security benefits (having enough work credits, being the right age, etc.) then you are considered eligible for benefits. But when you actually file a claim for benefits and get approved, you are legally entitled to those benefits. So that is what makes Social Security an entitlement program. And for that matter, any other government program for which you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and then sign an application and get approved for benefits is also an entitlement program. But popular culture, frankly mostly Fox News and the Tea Party folks, have given the term a bad name. They have started using the word to imply some kind of government handout, like welfare or food stamps. Actually, welfare and food stamps are also entitlement programs because you have to meet certain eligibility criteria and file a formal application to become entitled to those benefits, too. It's just too bad the name has been given such a stigma. There is nothing wrong with being an entitlement program. It's just a legal term.
Actually, the reason given was insurance costs. Employers claimed they couldn't afford the premiums to cover the liabilities. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
It is a legally correct ruling. Pot is unlawful. It is not made legal by state law. It is made not criminal under state jurisdiction. Within Federal jurisdiction, it is as illegal as ever. The state can repeal any state statute that criminalizes possession and use under state law. It cannot lawfully pass an affirmative statute to the effect that pot is legal, in direct conflict with controlling federal law. It could, perhaps, pass a statute that the state employment protection applieds to activity not unlawful pursuant to state statute. Prohibition could not be repealed in a state, by virtue of state law, when it was prohibited within federal jurisdiction. The states did not have to enact state laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages, but they could not lawfully enact legislation making such sale lawful within the state jurisdiction. An attempt to hold that a state statute overrides a federal statute will invite the Feds to come in and prove otherwise. A state may get away with not enforcing a federal statute, but it is unlikely the Feds would stand by as a state declared that its law had nullified a federal law. The statute was originally passed in 1990 to protect smokers (of tobacco). http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-402_5.html (1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction: (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest. (2)(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the sole remedy for any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory or unfair employment practice as defined in this section shall be as follows: He or she may bring a civil action for damages in any district court of competent jurisdiction and may sue for all wages and benefits that would have been due him or her up to and including the date of the judgment had the discriminatory or unfair employment practice not occurred; except that nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the person from the obligation to mitigate his or her damages. (b)(I) If the prevailing party in the civil action is the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff court costs and a reasonable attorney fee. (II) This paragraph (b) shall not apply to an employee of a business that has or had fifteen or fewer employees during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Coats v. Dish Network, [footnotes omitted] [excerpt] I. ¶5 We take the following from the complaint. Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic and has been confined to a wheelchair since he was a teenager. In 2009, he registered for and obtained a state-issued license to use medical marijuana to treat painful muscle spasms caused by his quadriplegia. Coats consumes medical marijuana at home, after work, and in accordance with his license and Colorado state law. ¶6 Between 2007 and 2010, Coats worked for respondent Dish as a telephone customer service representative. In May 2010, Coats tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), a component of medical marijuana, during a random drug test. Coats informed Dish that he was a registered medical marijuana patient and planned to continue using medical marijuana. On June 7, 2010, Dish fired Coats for violating the company's drug policy. ¶7 Coats then filed a wrongful termination claim against Dish under section 24-34-402.5, which generally prohibits employers from discharging an employee based on his engagement in "lawful activities" off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. § 24-34-402.5(1). Coats contended that Dish violated the statute by terminating him based on his outside-of-work medical marijuana use, which he argued 5 - - - - - was "lawful" under the Medical Marijuana Amendment and its implementing legislation. ¶8 Dish filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Coats's medical marijuana use was not "lawful" for purposes of the statute under either federal or state law. ¶9 The trial court dismissed Coats's claim. It rejected Coats's argument that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made his use a "lawful activity" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Instead the court found that the Amendment provided registered patients an affirmative defense to state criminal prosecution without making their use of medical marijuana a "lawful activity" within the meaning of section 24-34-402.5. As such, the trial court concluded that the statute afforded no protection to Coats and dismissed the claim without examining the federal law issue. ¶10 On appeal, Coats again argued that Dish wrongfully terminated him under section 24-34-402.5 because his use of medical marijuana was "lawful" under state law. Dish likewise reiterated that it did not violate section 24-34-402.5 because medical marijuana use remains prohibited under federal law. ¶11 In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed based on the prohibition of marijuana use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012) (the "CSA"). Looking to the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, the majority found that the term "lawful" means "that which is 'permitted by law.'" Coats, ¶ 13, 303 P.3d at 150. Applying that plain meaning, the majority reasoned that to be "lawful" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5, activities that are governed by both state and federal law must "be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law." Id. at 1 14, 6 - - - - - 303 P.3d at 151. Given that the federal CSA prohibits all marijuana use, the majority concluded that Coats's conduct was not "lawful activity" protected by the statute. The majority therefore affirmed the trial court's decision on different grounds, not reaching the question of whether the state constitutional amendment created a constitutional right for registered patients to use medical marijuana or an affirmative defense to prosecution for such use. Coats, ¶ 23, 303 P.3d at 152. ¶12 In dissent, Judge Webb argued that the term "lawful" must be interpreted according to state, rather than federal, law. He argued that the majority's interpretation failed to effectuate the purpose of the statute by improperly narrowing the scope of the statute's protection. Id. at ¶ 47, 303 P.3d at 156 (Webb, J., dissenting). Finding that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made state-licensed medical marijuana use "at least lawful," Judge Webb concluded that Coats's use should be protected by the statute. Id. at ¶ 56, 303 P.3d at 157 (Webb, J., dissenting). ¶13 We granted review of the court of appeals' opinion and now affirm. The term "lawful" as it is used in section 24-34-402.5 is not restricted in any way, and we decline to engraft a state law limitation onto the term. Therefore, an activity such as medical 7 - - - - - marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a "lawful" activity under section 24-34-402.5. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals. II. ¶14 We review de novo the question of whether medical marijuana use prohibited by federal law is a "lawful activity" protected under section 24-34-402.5. DuBois v. People, 211 P.3d 41, 43 (Colo. 2009). ¶15 The "lawful activities statute" provides that "[i]t shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours" unless certain exceptions apply. § 24-34-402.5(1) (emphasis added). An employee discharged in violation of this provision may bring a civil action for damages, including lost wages or benefits. § 24-34-402.5(2)(a). ¶16 By its terms the statute protects only "lawful" activities. However, the statute does not define the term "lawful." Coats contends that the term should be read as limited to activities lawful under state law. We disagree. ¶17 In construing undefined statutory terms, we look to the language of the statute itself "with a view toward giving the statutory language its commonly accepted and understood meaning." People v. Schuett, 833 P.2d 44, 47 (Colo. 1992). We have construed the term "lawful" once before and found that its "generally understood meaning" is "in accordance with the law or legitimate." See id. (citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1279 (1986)). Similarly, courts in other states have construed "lawful" to mean "authorized by law and not contrary to, nor forbidden by 8 - - - - - law." Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 574 N.W.2d 812, 821 (N.D. 1998) (defining "lawful" as used in similar lawful activities provision); In re Adoption of B.C.H., 22 N.E.3d 580, 585 (Ind. 2014) ("Upon our review of the plain and ordinary meaning of 'lawful custody,' . . . 'lawful' means 'not contrary to law.'"). We therefore agree with the court of appeals that the commonly accepted meaning of the term "lawful" is "that which is 'permitted by law' or, conversely, that which is "not contrary to, or forbidden by law." Coats, ¶ 13, 303 P.3d at 150. ¶18 We still must determine, however, whether medical marijuana use that is licensed by the State of Colorado but prohibited under federal law is "lawful" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Coats contends that the General Assembly intended the term "lawful" here to mean "lawful under Colorado state law," which, he asserts, recognizes medical marijuana use as "lawful." Coats, ¶ 6, 303 P.3d at 149. We do not read the term "lawful" to be so restrictive. Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term "lawful" to state law. Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a "lawful" activity is that which complies with applicable "law," including state and federal law. We therefore decline Coats's invitation to engraft a state law limitation onto the statutory language. See State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341, 1345 (Colo. 1986) (declining to read a restriction into unrestricted statutory language); Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563, 567 (Colo. 2007) (stating that "[w]e do not add words to the statute"). ¶19 Coats does not dispute that the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits medical marijuana use. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The CSA lists marijuana as a Schedule I 9 - - - - - substance, meaning federal law designates it as having no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Id. at § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). This makes the use, possession, or manufacture of marijuana a federal criminal offense, except where used for federally-approved research projects. Id. at § 844(a); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005). There is no exception for marijuana use for medicinal purposes, or for marijuana use conducted in accordance with state law. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); see also Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 29 (finding that "[t]he Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," including in the area of marijuana regulation). Coats's use of medical marijuana was unlawful under federal law and thus not protected by section 24-34-402.5. ¶20 Echoing Judge Webb's dissent, Coats argues that because the General Assembly intended section 24-34-402.5 to broadly protect employees from discharge for outside-of-work activities, we must construe the term "lawful" to mean "lawful under Colorado law." Coats, ¶¶ 46-47, 303 P.3d at 156 (Webb, J., dissenting). In this case, however, we find nothing to indicate that the General Assembly intended to extend section 10 - - - - - 24-34-402.5's protection for "lawful" activities to activities that are unlawful under federal law. In sum, because Coats's marijuana use was unlawful under federal law, it does not fall within section 24-34-402.5's protection for "lawful" activities. ¶21 Having decided this case on the basis of the prohibition under federal law, we decline to address the issue of whether Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment deems medical marijuana use "lawful" by conferring a right to such use. IV. ¶22 For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. JUSTICE MARQUEZ does not participate. 11 - - - - -
Comments (49 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOther than that, what people do in their free time - that does not carry over into their work time is their business.
#9. To: Gatlin (#4)
Yes....and do so legally.
#10. To: cranky (#0)
"Today's decision means that until someone in the House or Senate champions the cause, most employees who work in a state with the world's most powerful MMJ laws will have to choose between using MMJ and work," Evans said in a statement.
#11. To: redleghunter (#7)
Yes. There are tests to see if someone abuses alcohol. My company conducts such tests. They have to given the nature of the work. They test for pot too and other drugs. Even their offices in CO.
#12. To: redleghunter (#8)
But that's the problem with alcohol and drug dependency. It DOES leak over to the job place. Either by loss of sleep, hang over and eventual 'lunch time' breaks.
#13. To: sneakypete (#1)
Can they also fire people for drinking away from the job if they aren't coming to work drunk?
#14. To: sneakypete (#9)
You can sue anybody for anything...
#15. To: redleghunter (#6)
The problem with this article is how the information is presented.
#16. To: Pericles (#2)
Also, I am against drug tests by employers except for certain cases like drivers or pilots or public safety jobs. Other than that, what people do in their free time - that does not carry over into their work time is their business.
#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep.
#18. To: sneakypete (#1)
(Edited)
#19. To: GrandIsland (#16)
(Edited)
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep.
#20. To: redleghunter (#8)
But that's the problem with alcohol and drug dependency. It DOES leak over to the job place. Either by loss of sleep, hang over and eventual 'lunch time' breaks.
#21. To: sneakypete (#11)
I can see this with some occupations,but for a guy that answers phones for Dish Network?????? Where is the justification for that?
#22. To: CZ82 (#12)
#23. To: cranky (#15)
#24. To: Pericles (#20)
#25. To: Pericles (#19)
(Edited)
We should check the SS takers also? Or people on govt pension like you?
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#18)
You communists have infiltrated us.
#28. To: Pericles (#19)
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep.
#29. To: redleghunter (#21)
Companies set standards and apply them to all employees. We did that in the Army...even the cooks have to take a PT test and shoot their rifle.
#30. To: redleghunter (#22)
Most don't look at this from an employers perspective as well. If someone owned a business would they want pot users and drunks working for them? We have to remember people who run businesses have to make payroll. The larger ones use a zero tolerance because it's hard to herd a bunch of cats. They also know somewhere a dealer is working the employee network to find new users.
#31. To: Pericles (#26)
Welfare is en ENTITLEMENT. Social Security is WELFARE.
#32. To: redleghunter (#23)
In the company I work in if someone self reports they get them help and don't fire them.
#33. To: redleghunter (#22)
Most don't look at this from an employers perspective as well. If someone owned a business would they want pot users and drunks working for them? We have to remember people who run businesses have to make payroll. The larger ones use a zero tolerance because it's hard to herd a bunch of cats. They also know somewhere a dealer is working the employee network to find new users.
#34. To: sneakypete (#31)
#35. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#29)
Dish Network ain't the army. Nobody is going to go into their phone center and snatch up talkers to go out to climb ladders to install sat dishes. Most of the people who take and keep those jobs are probably handicapped and can't work regular jobs,so that's why they are there.
#36. To: sneakypete, CZ82, tomder55 (#30)
In a free country employers have no say about what their employees do while not working as long as it doesn't adversely affect the performance or safety while on the job.
#37. To: cranky, CZ82, tomder55, sneakypete, liberator (#32)
Does that apply to all legal substances or does your employer pick and choose what you can ingest on your own time?
#38. To: sneakypete (#1)
(Edited)
Can they also fire people for drinking away from the job if they aren't coming to work drunk?
#39. To: VxH (#38)
Can they also fire people for drinking away from the job if they aren't coming to work drunk?
#40. To: sneakypete (#39)
(Edited)
#41. To: sneakypete (#39)
#42. To: VxH (#41)
Be interesting to see how this Navy Chaplain's complaint turns out:
#43. To: redleghunter (#37)
(Edited)
It does. For they know people abuse even legal prescription drugs.
#44. To: cranky (#43)
Back in the day when I cared about such things, some Texas companies refuse to hire or employ after the policy was adopted, any tobacco users (cigar, cigarette, snuff, chaw, et al).
#45. To: Pericles (#19)
We should check the SS takers also?
#46. To: TheFireBert (#45)
#47. To: redleghunter (#44)
Well some corporations know the most time wasted at work
#48. To: redleghunter, cranky, SOSO, liberator, CZ82, TooConservative, sneakypete (#6)
¶9 The trial court dismissed Coats's claim. It rejected Coats's argument that the Medical Marijuana Amendment made his use a "lawful activity" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Instead the court found that the Amendment provided registered patients an affirmative defense to state criminal prosecution without making their use of medical marijuana a "lawful activity" within the meaning of section 24-34-402.5. As such, the trial court concluded that the statute afforded no protection to Coats and dismissed the claim without examining the federal law issue.
24-34-402.5. Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment
¶4 We granted certiorari and now affirm. The term "lawful" as it is used in section 24-34-402.5 is not restricted in any way, and we decline to engraft a state law limitation onto the term. Therefore, an activity such as medical marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a "lawful" activity under section 24-34-402.5. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]