Colorado Supreme Court Solves Pressing Problem Of Stoner Quadriplegics In The Workplace

[+Malamute]

Colorado Supreme Court Solves Pressing Problem Of Stoner Quadriplegics In The Workplace

 

http://wonkette.com/588469/colorado-supreme-court-solves-pressing-problem-of-stoner-quadriplegics-in-the-workplace

 

 

So now that Colorado has legalized people getting all potted up on weed for both medical and recreational purposes, you might think everything is mellow and awesome and Doritos sales are through the roof, right? You would think wrong, though, as the Colorado Supreme Court decided Monday morning that the state’s “lawful activities statute” didn’t protect a quadriplegic man from being fired for use of medical marijuana at home, even though he never used it at work and had an excellent work history.

 

Brandon Coats, who was paralyzed in a car crash when he was 16, suffered from severe muscle spasms and seizures that were alleviated by a prescription for marijuana. But he was fired by his employer, Dish Network, after a random drug test detected THC in his bloodstream. The Colorado Supreme Court held that “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” of “lawful activities,” which only covers activities legal under state and federal law. Like drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, for example.

 

Coats’s attorneys had argued that since he “was never accused or suspected of being under the influence and received satisfactory performance reviews all three years” that he worked at Dish, he should not have been fired. Dish’s attorney argued that THC is evidence of drug use, and that by definition, its presence in the blood indicated that Coats was in violation of the company’s “zero tolerance” drug policy:

He smoked marijuana while at home, but he crossed the threshold [to his office] with THC in his system. The use is the effects, it’s the THC, it’s the whole point of marijuana. So when he came to work, he was using.

Dish never contended that Coats was impaired, since the mere presence of THC was sufficient cause to fire him. And nope, the federal Americans With Disabilities Act doesn’t allow any exceptions for medical pot either. Colorado’s Amendment 20, which made medical marijuana legal, doesn’t require employers to tolerate marijuana use in the workplace, but also doesn’t say anything about whether employees can be fired for at-home use; today’s decision at least settles that question, which ought to be a great comfort for Mr. Coats. This is what’s known in the law as the “Sucks to be you, but now the law’s status is clarified” principle. Maybe he can get a nice T-shirt or something.

In the 23 states (and the District of Columbia) that have legalized medical marijuana, only Arizona and Delaware expressly forbid employers from punishing use of marijuana away from the workplace. Both allow firings if employees are impaired at work. Along similar lines, the federal Department of Transportation says that it’s “unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s regulations to use marijuana,” which means no medical marijuana for bus drivers anywhere. Sorry, Otto, regardless of what state Springfield may be in.

Here’s hoping that this dumb law eventually changes. As long as job performance isn’t affected and the person isn’t impaired at work, it seems kind of stupid to take away an option that allows someone like Brandon Coats to control his tremors, which really would interfere with being a customer service operator. Congratulations, War on Some Drugs! Yet another productive member of society taken off the job market by “zero tolerance.”

 

 

 

 

 

[t-pain]

yeah, take the time to call dish network today and cancel your subscription, make them know that their policy of firing quadriplegics will not be accepted by you (or anyone who has a heart really).

[t-pain]

In the 23 states (and the District of Columbia) that have legalized medical marijuana, only Arizona and Delaware expressly forbid employers from punishing use of marijuana away from the workplace.

this does not matter in arizona or delaware either. michigan's law is very similar to arizona, thats why walmart took the case to federal court and obviously won there. why his lawyers kept going after the michigan federal court ruled in walmarts favor i have no idea...

[t-pain]

And nope, the federal Americans With Disabilities Act doesn’t allow any exceptions for medical pot either.

anyone who thinks they can use the ADA to keep people in sec8 housing with mmj is fooling themselves as well.

[bobandtorey]

this does not matter in arizona or delaware either. michigan's law is very similar to arizona, thats why walmart took the case to federal court and obviously won there. why his lawyers kept going after the michigan federal court ruled in walmarts favor i have no idea...

it was the ACLU Lawyers 

[+Malamute]

Arizonas law is actually much different...

A. No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for his status as a cardholder, unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either:

1. The person's status as a cardholder.

2. A registered qualifying patient's positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.

C. For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a registered qualifying patient's authorized use of marijuana must be considered the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician and does not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualifying patient from medical care.

D. No person may be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor, and there is no presumption of neglect or child endangerment for conduct allowed under this chapter, unless the person's behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.

 

[+Malamute]

Five Things Every Arizona Employer Should Know About Medical Marijuana

 

 

1.  Employers are prohibited from disciplining an employee or refusing to hire a job applicant because the employee or applicant is authorized to use medical marijuana.

Subject to certain narrowly drawn exceptions, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals who are authorized to use medical marijuana. The principal exception to this prohibition applies if the hiring or retention of a medical marijuana user would cause the employer to lose a monetary or license-related federal benefit.

This exception is widely viewed as a reference to the Drug Free Workplace Act, which imposes a drug-free workplace requirement on federal contractors and federal grant recipients. However, because the Drug Free Workplace Act only prohibits the unlawful use or possession of drugs in the workplace itself, the exception may have relatively little practical application for employers attempting to comply with the AMMA.

2.  Employers cannot discipline or refuse to hire an authorized medical marijuana user because the individual tests positive for marijuana use.

Although Arizona employers are not prohibited from testing their employees and applicants for the use of marijuana and other controlled substances, the AMMA protects authorized medical marijuana users who test positive for use of the drug from adverse employment action based solely on the positive test results.

Again, a theoretical exception exists for employers whose hiring or retention of such an individual would result in the loss of federal benefits. However, the Drug Free Workplace Act does not require employers to test their employees or applicants for illegal drug use, nor does it dictate the action an employer must take if an employee or applicant tests positive for the use of such a drug.

In addition, while drug use in safety-sensitive industries such as mining and transportation is subject to additional federal regulation, those regulations generally do not mandate employee or applicant drug testing, and while violations of the regulations may subject employers to fines and other penalties, they generally do not subject employers to the loss of any federal benefits. Hence, the AMMA exception again appears to have little if any practical significance in this situation.

3.  An employer can discipline an employee who tests positive for marijuana use, even if the employee is authorized to use medical marijuana, if there is additional objective evidence that the employee possessed or was impaired by the drug while at work or during working hours.

Additional evidence of workplace impairment may include involvement in a workplace incident that appears to reflect negligence or carelessness, decreased coordination or dexterity, slowed or slurred speech, glassy or blood shot eyes, and/or a detectable odor of marijuana.

4.  Employers are not required to permit their employees to use or possess marijuana for any purpose on the employer's premises or during working hours.

The AMMA specifically states that employers are not required to allow the ingestion of marijuana in their workplaces, and authorizes employers to discipline employees who do so. The AMMA also allows employers to "discriminate" against medical marijuana users who test positive for the use of marijuana if they used or possessed the drug on the employer's premises or during their working hours.

5.  The impairing effects of marijuana have been shown to last for up to 48 hours after ingestion.

The fact that an employee's off-duty use of medical marijuana may be protected under state law does not alter the fact that such use may have adverse and occasionally even catastrophic workplace consequences. An employer who allows an employee to continue working after testing positive for marijuana may be placing the employee, the employee's coworkers, and innocent third parties at risk, thereby subjecting itself to potential civil liability to those who may be injured as a result of the employee's inability to work safely.

One relatively unsatisfactory potential response to this dilemma is for the employer to relieve employees who test positive for marijuana from any safety-sensitive duties until they can establish their ability to perform those duties through, for example, a subsequent "negative" drug test. The obvious inefficiency of this potential "solution" is merely one example of the difficulties employers face in attempting to comply with the AMMA.
 

[+Malamute]

Speaking of this kinda stuff, where are these type of protections for the legalization initiatives?  O yea,...people are more concerned about commercialization than personal rights.... I forgot.

 

[t-pain]

did you read the CSC opinion ? or walmart opinion ?

 

it doesnt matter what arizona (or michigan) law says about employment, fed laws trump this.

[+Malamute]

We filed an Amicus brief in the case...

[+Malamute]

did you read the CSC opinion ? or walmart opinion ?

 

it doesnt matter what arizona (or michigan) law says about employment, fed laws trump this.

 

 

 Also, there are many many jobs that can be protected.

[t-pain]

then why do you think arizona law protects patients from being fired? the aclu has lost every single case it has tried in every state.

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20120826medical-pot-tests-employee-relations.html

Officer Carrick Cook, a state Department of Public Safety spokesman, is trained in recognizing signs of drug-related impairment. With marijuana, he said, employers should look for bloodshot or watery eyes, shakiness, burn marks around the mouth from smoking and poor coordination.

lol...

http://www.kpho.com/story/27462736/frustrations-mount-for-marijuana-card-holders-seeking-employment

 

also:

rhode island

Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corporation

http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2015/02/medical-marijuana-discrimination/

 

also:

ROE v. TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE

washington state 2011 ruling.

[t-pain]

i dont understand people sometimes. every single court has ruled against patients who were fired for mmj. its a federal issue, no wording in any state law will protect anyone from being fired for marijuana.

 

maybe the threat of paying unemployment.

[+Malamute]

"It was, basically, in my opinion, crap," Shapiro told The Arizona Republic. "I was fired unlawfully."

Across Arizona, employers and workers are settling into an uneasy relationship with medical marijuana. While a 2010 voter-approved law forbids employers from discriminating against medical-marijuana patients, the law provides no protection for employees who are impaired at work.

And a 2011 law gave some businesses additional authority to penalize workers if they are believed to be impaired at work.

Still, employers across Arizona are grappling with how to handle workers who are now legally permitted to use marijuana.

After Shapiro was told she was too much of a liability, she looked up the state's medical-marijuana law, which contains an anti-discrimination provision that prohibits an employer from hiring, firing or disciplining individuals just because of their participation in the state's medical-marijuana program.

She filed a lawsuit against the hospice, claiming she was discriminated against. The lawsuit was resolved with an out-of-court settlement.

YourLink

 

 

Federal funding causes issues and such.  But a settlement was a win considering the hospice received federal funding.

 

 I know the issue well, and with proper language,  many jobs can be protected.

[t-pain]

do you have one case that ruled in favor of a patient? why are you dodging the reality here?

 

settlements are just what you do when you dont want to pay lawyer fees to win in court. that lady was fired and didnt get her job back.

[Quadcarl]

I've been a directv customer since I broke my neck, guess I subconsciously knew dish was out of touch.

 

MMJ works GREAT for my muscle spasms too, good thing I'm not looking for a regular job anytime soon, or ever

[t-pain]

montana supreme court:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/court-tosses-suit-by-fired-pot-user/article_de0508e5-fede-5cb8-9127-003cd24c9763.html

 

quotes karen o'keefe... who i guess didnt learn anything from 2004 to 2008 when she drafted our law.

 

oregon supreme court:

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/oregon_supreme_court_says_ok_t.html

 

do you want me to continue proving you wrong with facts malamute? what state protects patients from being fired?

[+Malamute]

You don't hear about the saved jobs because they don't go to court.

 

 The cases that have been to court have been losers due to jurisdiction issues mostly.

 

 And Arizona is pretty much the only state with such protections. And even there, they amended the protections for employers.

[t-pain]

maine: Thomas v Adecco

 

massachusetts

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/22/medical-marijuana-patient-files-discrimination-complaint-over-firing/iptEJe2A0TITWuoJggQgZL/story.html

[+Malamute]

Why are you showing cases from states that have no protections?

[t-pain]

i cant find anything for hawaii or delaware. quality of google has dropped. not to mention news sites that think i want to pay to read their drivel.

[Wild Bill]

Here's an online petition;

 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/133/721/176/quadriplegic-gentleman-fired-by-dish-network-for-choosing-a-more-effective-medication/#sign

[trichcycler]

can anyone point me to the story of the;

 

"A court case was recently won in Michigan, giving the plaintiff company the choice of re-hiring the man to his position, or paying him full compensation"

 

mentioned in the petition?

[t-pain]

in my research i have not found a single patient who has been fired and the court agreed with them.

 

the unemployment benefit michigan case, the district court ruled in favor of the patient in 2011. the coa said it was ok to fire, but have to pay unemployment.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/10/24/medical-marijuana-michigan-unemployment-compensation/17866619/

 

i think the petition maybe from 2012, grassmatch. wild bill needs to find a better petition if it only got 9 signatures in 3 years

[wildman69]

You would think that someone could argue the law is not being applied equally. Alcohol is also considered a drug and has been proven to be much more harmful than marijuana. If they are firing people for marijuana use, to apply that equally, should they not also be firing people for alcohol use? Zero tolerance is zero tolerance! Or is it just zero tolerance for recreational drugs that the Federal government has deemed legal but not ones the state has?

 

Federal government backed discrimination......Smh

Edited June 18, 2015 by wildman69