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: 15223
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
It's a bullshit ruling. Can they also fire people for drinking away from the job if they aren't coming to work drunk?
Can they also fire people for drinking away from the job if they aren't coming to work drunk? That is a fair point. But there is no test for pot intoxication just for past pot use. 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.
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!
He's all in for immorality so he doesn't care.
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.
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 36. End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
(Edited)
It's a bullshit ruling.
#8. To: Pericles (#2)
Other than that, what people do in their free time - that does not carry over into their work time is their business.
#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.
#22. To: CZ82 (#12)
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]