• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Colorado Appeals Court Rules Employers Can Fire Marijuana Users

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/apr/25/colorado_appeals_court_rules_emp

Colorado employers can legally fire marijuana users from their jobs, the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in a 2-1 decision. Although the case was brought by a medical marijuana user, the ruling will have any even broader impact given that the state has now legalized marijuana for all adults.

The case was Coats v. Dish Network LLC, in which Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic telephone operator for Dish Network and registered medical marijuana patient, was fired by Dish Network after testing positive for marijuana during a drug test. Paralyzed by a car crash as a teen, Coats had been a registered patient since 2009. Dish Network cited no other reason for firing Coats other than his positive drug test result.
Coats challenged his firing, citing Colorado's Lawful Activities statute, which prohibits employers from firing workers for "engaging in any legal activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours." But both the trial court and now the appeals court rejected his challenge, holding that because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Lawful Activities statute does not apply.

"For an activity to be lawful in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law," the appeals court said.

Judge John Webb dissented, saying he could not find a case addressing whether Colorado judges must consider federal law in determining the meaning of the Colorado statute.

Coats' attorney, Michael Evans, said in a statement that the ruling will have a broad impact in the state.

"This case not only impacts Mr. Coats, but also some 127,816 medical marijuana patient-employees in Colorado who could be summarily terminated even if they are in legal compliance with Colorado state law," Evans said.

And with adult marijuana legalization now in place in the state, it is not just medical marijuana users who stand to be affected.

The ruling is expected to be appealed.

Similar rulings allowing employers to fire medical marijuana users have been upheld by courts in other states, including California, Michigan, and Montana.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/apr/25/colorado_appeals_court_rules_emp
 
This will be challenged and overturned.
It is illogical that a state wouid have to consider federal law when deciding what state law means and to whom it applies.
Not to mention that it is FUCKED UP to fire a quadriplegic for using MEDICINE that is LEGAL in may states.
Boycott Dish Network, I say, until they relent.
 
So what about alcoholics and smokers? So fucking biased without any real information to support it. Especially in the case of medical marijuana, it makes me sick when an older person, whos probably struggling with life as it is gets fired for using medicine theyre prescribed... Makes my blood boil.
 
So what about alcoholics and smokers? So fucking biased without any real information to support it. Especially in the case of medical marijuana, it makes me sick when an older person, whos probably struggling with life as it is gets fired for using medicine theyre prescribed... Makes my blood boil.

Are there laws prohibiting job discrimination based on either of those factors? I could have sworn I've heard of hospitals that won't hire smokers and other employers who count coming up for alcohol on a drug test barring them from employment also. (argument I swear I've heard is that if you can't even not drink the day before the interview you can't be too serious) If I am right that an employer can choose not to hire you because of cigarettes or alcohol, I see no reason weed should be an exception. I'm all for the legalization of drugs, but I think employment should be left to the free market, if an employer doesn't want to hire me because I'm fat or atheist that should be their right, even if I don't like it. I'm against forcing employers to hire anyone whom they don't choose to.
 
Someone who smokes pot after work (like i do) shouldnt not be allowed a job simply because i choose to get high after work(most of the time ;) ). If someone needs it as medicine and must smoke it during the day, i agree that its up to the employer... but lets get real, if you are working at a walmart or similar store being high for medicinal reasons isnt wrong. We let people do all sorts of jobs messed up on tons of opiates because manual labor can hurt people. so why isnt it fair to smoke weed if buddy is taking oxycontin and dilaudid for pain relief. But to fire someone who you have already hired, simply because they take their medicine is fucked up
 
While I agree with you that an employer shouldn't discriminate based on weed (I'm a stoner, main drug of choice) when so few do for alcohol I think they should have the right to hire and fire who they please and as such I think they should have the right to discriminate against pot smokers if they want. Though I think they should be able to be racist and sexist and ageist if they so choose. I don't think it's governments place to tell private business who they have to hire.
 
Though I think they should be able to be racist and sexist and ageist if they so choose.

Let me guess - you are a young, white, male saying this.
Just a guess, of course, but it is really easy for young white men to say things like this. It would mean much more if a poor, struggling, elderly, black woman said it.
 
Let me guess - you are a young, white, male saying this.
Just a guess, of course, but it is really easy for young white men to say things like this. It would mean much more if a poor, struggling, elderly, black woman said it.

I suppose that's true, I do have that bias, but I still think telling people who they need to hire isn't the place of the government. If a buisness goes against the moral standards we have let it be revealed and boycott their business. But I can't really disagree that being young and white does bias me towards that a bit. I'm still all for the free market, I guess it's just a matter of role of the government. We can have the government try to make everything nice and fair at the price of efficiency, and I can understand why people would be willing to make the trade off. But I

That said, laws that force employers to hire people on any basis simply don't work (so even if I agreed with them I'd still find them largely useless). Put whatever law you feel like in place, white racists won't hire blacks, male sexists won't hire women. As long as they don't directly say as much, there's nothing you can really do. They can say it's for any of a hundred reasons. You tell business owners they have to hire people who come up for marijuana on a drug test, and I bet you each and every place that drug tests and wants to discriminate will find a reason not to hire the person who comes up for marijuana.
 
This will be challenged and overturned.
It is illogical that a state wouid have to consider federal law when deciding what state law means and to whom it applies.
Not to mention that it is FUCKED UP to fire a quadriplegic for using MEDICINE that is LEGAL in may states.
Boycott Dish Network, I say, until they relent.

Yeah, but by who? A "federal court".....

The most disturbing thing about the whole thing is that it's a quadriplegic....I mean, come on!
 
We need to put this to a national referendum. Remove marijuana from Schedule I under federal law. Is there any doable way to do this in the American federal justice system?
 
We need to put this to a national referendum. Remove marijuana from Schedule I under federal law. Is there any doable way to do this in the American federal justice system?

No. We'd need to amend the Constitution in order to have a national referendum process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

With this congress, that is impossible. And because the Tea Party thing took hold in the US just before the latest census was conducted, congressional districts were gerrymandered to ensure that we will have something like the current congress through at least 2020.

Again, the rebellious South.

Of course, that could've been avoided if Americans were in the habit of voting in midterm elections.
 
^ or voting at all.
(I bet you just wanted to use the word "gerrymandered".)
 
Top