Colorado Supreme Court upholds firing of pot smoker

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NOSfan

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,426
Reaction score
542
Timely article with some merit for medical professionals.

Colorado Supreme Court upholds firing of pot smoker
John Bacon, USA TODAY 1:11 p.m. EDT June 15, 2015

A medical marijuana patient in Colorado fired for flunking a drug test isn't entitled to get his job back, even though marijuana is legal in the state, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday.

"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," the court said in a brief statement. The ruling, affirming a lower court decision, could have implications across the nation.

The case is important for pot smokers and their employers in states where use has been legalized. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational use of the drug in 2012, but almost half the states have legalized medical marijuana.

Quadriplegic Brandon Coats was fired by Dish Network after the call-center worker failed the drug test in 2010. The company cited its zero-tolerance drug policy, but did acknowledge that there was no evidence Coats was high on the job.

Coats said he never hid his off-duty medical marijuana use from his bosses. Instead, he argued, his three years of outstanding performance showed he was a responsible worker who used pot nightly to help control seizures and spasms.

DISH argued Coats violated the company's zero-tolerance drug policy, and said he was treated no differently than an employee who showed up drunk. The two sides made oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court in September.

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, can remain in the bloodstream for weeks -- long after the effects of the drug have vanished.

Coats brought his lawsuit against the company under Colorado's lawful off-duty activities law, which says employers cannot fire people for doing something legal on their own time. The law originally protected cigarette smokers, among others, and predates the state's legalization of marijuana.

Coats asked the court to consider whether marijuana use, be it medical or recreational, is "lawful" in Colorado. The court held that under the lawful activities statute, "the term 'lawful' refers only to those activities that are lawful under both state and federal law."

Courts in California, Montana and Washington state also have rejected claims by medical marijuana patients who lost their jobs after failing drug tests.

Contributing: Trevor Hughes

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-court-rules-against-marijuana-user/71250492/

Members don't see this ad.
 
How is this different than truckers who get fired after testing positive for opiates? I assume the job description details if you are/are not allowed to use "medications" that affect alertness while performing your duties, and if you are not allowed you would be out.

Although for truckers it may be DOT rules around the license rather than a specific employer, I don't know.
 
it's still a federal crime...and employers should be able to set the terms of their employment
 
Members don't see this ad :)
the truckers and bus drivers i have taken care of have shown me in their contract where it is stated that they are not allowed to use any "mind altering substances, including narcotics".
 
Oh the RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION of employers denying patients their MEDICINE. ACLU to the rescue of yet another fraudulent cause!
 
This particular case was B.S. though
 
Yes, What BS legal jurisprudence. Its basically the Colorado supreme court sold out to corporate America?
Why the hell would someone who is doing his job be held liable for what he does in his private time? that is off work. unfortunately for pot smokers the Ingredient can be detected for weeks in the urine.
There was a nurse who tested positive and that case is also in litigation
Just legalize the herb and stop the waste of prison resources.
 
Yes, What BS legal jurisprudence. Its basically the Colorado supreme court sold out to corporate America?
Why the hell would someone who is doing his job be held liable for what he does in his private time? that is off work. unfortunately for pot smokers the Ingredient can be detected for weeks in the urine.
There was a nurse who tested positive and that case is also in litigation
Just legalize the herb and stop the waste of prison resources.
I also think it should be illegal but they aren't being fired for just "what they do in their off time". They are being fired for a federal crime

*edit...I meant to type illegal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also think it should be legal but they aren't being fired for just "what they do in their off time". They are being fired for a federal crime
How many people have been Fedrally Prosecuted for the personal use of MJ?
 
How many people have been Fedrally Prosecuted for the personal use of MJ?
ugh....sorry, I see that I mistyped and made it look like mj should be illegal. I'm for full decriminalization of everything, if you are an adult and are dumb enough to put anything in you....it's your call

I'm also for companies being able to have whatever terms of employment they want, if you don't like it....don't work there
 
Yes, What BS legal jurisprudence. Its basically the Colorado supreme court sold out to corporate America?
Why the hell would someone who is doing his job be held liable for what he does in his private time? that is off work. unfortunately for pot smokers the Ingredient can be detected for weeks in the urine.
There was a nurse who tested positive and that case is also in litigation
Just legalize the herb and stop the waste of prison resources.
a company is allowed to specify whatever policy they want, as long as there are no federal/state requirements against (you know, no racial/ethnic/ADA restrictions). if you are going to work for someone, you need to follow their rules with regards to on the job requirements. you can argue that the marijuana is not in his system a few hours after they use it. but you can also argue that the presence of cannabinoids in a person's urine suggests that there is the potential for continued effect - even if they "cant feel anything" - from use days or weeks ago.
 
Top