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: 13134
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 # 75.
#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.
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.
I do understand the way the system currently works. Thank you for taking the time to try to explain it anyways. Pericles, on the other hand, may have trouble tying his shoes, let alone understand a simple concept as a masterfully executed GrubberMint pyramid scheme designed in the same manner as many public employee pension funds are handled now. Force Paul to pay into a GrubberMint-sponsored pension plan fund all of his working life. Paul retires. There are no funds to pay Paul as promised. Rob Peter to pay Paul; tell Peter it is his "civic duty" to keep getting to robbed because soon he will be in Paul's position. Promise a better payout for Peter when he retires. Plan on reducing his payout while enjoying a Peter-funded $200,000 "conference" on how well you are running the GrubberMint-sponsored pension plans.
As the ratio of donors to beneficiaries decreases, the system explodes. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html The ratio of workers to beneficiaries has progressively deteriorated from 16.5:1 in 1950 to 2.9:1 in 2010. At 3:1, for an average of $12k/yr (plucked out of the air) in benefits, each worker needs to contribute $4k/yr. If that progresses to a 2:1 ratio, each employee would have to contribute $6k/yr. Eligibility requirements will increase and benefits decrease, assuming the debt does not overwhelm the economy and just kill it dead.
The number of payers increased ~4X in that time, and the number of payees increased ~240X in the same period. A pyramid scheme so out of proportion yet so legally sucessful it would make ol' Bernard Madoff proud!!! What would be interesting to find would be the total amount taken in the name of SS vs. the amount disbursed in the name of SS... I tire of doing such disappointing research.
#77. To: TheFireBert (#75)
Here's for last year. There is about $2.7T in "asset" reserves in the SS fund, which would appear as a $2.7T debit in the general fund. It is just a game with numbers which will always add up to a government asset/debit of zero. Note also that the rate of return on a dollar paid in fell to "92 cents for workers who reached age 65 in 2010," and is projected to fall to "84 cents for workers who will reach age 65 in 2030." And it will keep falling. And they want to reduce the automatic cost of living adjustment. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/assets.html Operations in quarter Operations in fiscal year 2014 * Operations in calendar year 2014 * A 2013 Heritage Foundation report shows deficits.
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?
#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?
#71. To: nolu chan (#49)
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.
#74. To: TheFireBert (#71)
Force Paul to pay into a GrubberMint-sponsored pension plan fund all of his working life. Paul retires. There are no funds to pay Paul as promised. Rob Peter to pay Paul; tell Peter it is his "civic duty" to keep getting to robbed because soon he will be in Paul's position. Promise a better payout for Peter when he retires. Plan on reducing his payout while enjoying a Peter-funded $200,000 "conference" on how well you are running the GrubberMint-sponsored pension plans.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
Replies to Comment # 75.
ending December 31, 2014
[In billions]
Income $222.6
Outgo 215.7
Difference 6.9
[In billions]
Income $877.4
Outgo 850.3
Difference 27.1
* The period from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
[In billions]
Income $884.3
Outgo 859.2
Difference 25.0
* The period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 75.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]