Skip to main content

Updated: Firing of Medical Marijuana User Lawful, Even Though Marijuana Usage Legal in the State


Earlier this week, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its ruling in the highly anticipated Coats v. Dish Network case.  I had pointed this one out to readers last September as one to keep an eye on (Coats v. Dish Network - Original Post)...sure enough, it took a bit longer than expected, but we finally have a ruling. 


Coats v. Dish Network - Colorado Supreme Court


Facts:  A quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, lost his job at Dish Network after he was fired for failing a random drug test as a result of off-the-job medical marijuana use.  Coats claimed that he used marijuana to control muscle spasms that had resulted from a car accident that left him wheelchair bound.  Coats brought suit against Dish and claimed he had been unlawfully terminated, as his marijuana use was legal under Colorado state law and he had never been impaired while on the job.

The trial court upheld the termination.  The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling on the grounds that since marijuana usage is illegal under federal law, employees have no protection to use it anytime they want.  

Holding:  The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings and held that Dish lawfully terminated Coats for his off duty conduct, not withstanding the fact that recreational and medial marijuana usage is legal in Colorado.  (Note, Colorado is one of only four states to have legalized "recreational marijuana usage" and one of twenty three states to have legalized medical marijuana usage).  Of course, marijuana usage remains illegal under federal law for virtually all purposes.

The Supreme Court first looked at the issue raised by Coats, in that Colorado prohibits an employer from firing an employee for lawful off duty conduct.  This law, the Lawful Off Duty Activities Statute, was used by Coats to argue that even though he tested positive for marijuana, the law should protect him from being terminated since he engaged in lawful off duty conduct in Colorado.  However, ss the Court noted, "lawful" refers only to those activities which are lawful under both state and federal law.  Since the marijuana usage was not lawful under federal law, this statute did not apply to Coats. 

Judgment:  The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the firing of Coats on the grounds that even though his marijuana usage was lawful under Colorado state law, it remained unlawful under federal law, and therefore the Lawful Off Duty Activities Statute did not provide any protections for an employee terminated for marijuana usage off the clock.

The Takeaway:  I can't say this one is too surprising.  The Court got it right here...the correct reading of the law simply did not provide any protection to Coats.  While some states might allow an employee to lawfully engage in marijuana usage while off duty, the fact that this activity remains unlawful under federal law is going to limit the coverage afforded to employees with laws like the Lawful Off Duty Activities Statute. 

Until Congress does something to make marijuana usage lawful at the federal level (or carves out protections for state authorized medical marijuana usage), very little will likely change on this front.  

As well, as noted by my friends over at Stoel Rives, an employer does not need to accommodate medical marijuana usage under the Americans with Disabilities Act...because marijuana usage is unlawful under federal law.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Eid

Date:  June 15, 2015

Opinion:  www.stoel.com/Files/103897_Coats-v-Dish-13SC394.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more