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: 14194
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 # 45.
#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.
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep.
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.
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.
#46. To: TheFireBert (#45)
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.
There is no money in an SS account. The incoming money goes into the General Fund. Each month money is drawn from the General Fund to fund the current expenses for that month. The extra funds remain in the General Fund and are spent. The SS Account contains nothing but Federal bonds or IOUs. If the General Fund goes bust, the SS Fund has nothing but worthless paper. The SS Account has nothing but the full faith and credit of the government.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
(Edited)
It's a bullshit ruling.
#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.
#19. To: GrandIsland (#16)
(Edited)
And welfare. God forbid we test the lazy sheep.
#45. To: Pericles (#19)
We should check the SS takers also?
Replies to Comment # 45.
#49. To: TheFireBert, Pericles (#45)
If the money in the SS account belongs to the person who is drawing it, isn't it supposedly earned?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]