Colo Supreme Court: No Protection for Workers Who Use Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 08:41:00 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday ruled employers can fire workers who use marijuana outside of the workplace. The opinion in Coats v. Dish Network is here.

The supreme court holds that under the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, 13 C.R.S. (2014), Colorado’s “lawful activities statute,” the term “lawful” refers only to those activities that are 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 16 but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute. We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ opinion.

Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic and medical marijuana user who was fired from his job as a telephone operator at Dish Network for using marijuana in his off-job hours. [More...]

The issue: Can you be fired for off-the-job marijuana use that doesn't impact your job performance? The Colorado Court of Appeals said yes, ruling because marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, it isn't a lawful activity under state law protecting employees from being fired for engaging in lawful activities in their off-hours. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed. There were no dissents (one Justice didn't participate.)

Marijuana use remains a federal misdemeanor under 21 U.S.C. 844 (a).

Clearly what is needed is a federal law legalizing the use of marijuana -- not just providing protection from prosecution in states where it is legal. Ideally, marijuana should be removed entirely from the schedule of controlled substances.

Colo. Rep. Jared Polis and OR Rep. Earl Blumenauer have introduced H.R. 1013. You can read the bill and follow developments here.

< Jeb Bush to Formally Launch Campaign Monday | Donald Trump Announces Presidential Bid >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Colo Supreme Court: No Protection for Workers Who Use Marijuana | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A few notes . . . (none / 0) (#1)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 07:36:34 AM EST

The post says it was posted at 8:41 am Eastern time, 6/16/2015.

I am viewing it at 5:27 am Pacific time which is 8:27 Eastern time.

I could be wrong, but I believe I saw this thread begun even earlier this morning or last night. Someone may wish to check your time stamp procedure.

However, it is peculiar that I get to comment on this thread and perhaps be the first or one of the first. The actions of Dish or the employer if there is some contract or subcontracting relationship in this case appear to me to be particular cruel and morally idiotic. there are obviously persons who abuse the ability to obtain a med mj recommendation and there are others who are genuinely in need and helped greatly. Firing a person who is disabled and in need of mj for an actual medical situation seems to me to be cruel and morally foolish. I wish the state of Col could write a law to forbid such firings. Whether they could do so, I do not know.

You or I might kind of wish that Dish would burn to the ground or change with such idiotic policies. Not that I am advocating arson . . . but I have a religious background and we do believe in hell where I am from and I tend to believe that you reap as you sow and the action of firing, for this cause, and contesting the suit is reprehensible and despicable.

Section 16 (6) (a) (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 08:18:25 AM EST

Of Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution (which made marijuana legal) also states the following (which the Court referenced):

Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.

So, a change in federal law really won't matter much since the state law says an employer can still have a policy forbidding the use of mj by employees. My guess is, should the federal law change, that caveat will apply as well.

Basically, the Court said you can't be criminally prosecuted for mj, but that doesn't make it an affirmatively lawful activity.


There are plenty of things that are (none / 0) (#3)
by Anne on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 08:44:31 AM EST

lawful that employers have policies against - consumption of alcohol being the most obvious one.


Have you read the Colorado law? (none / 0) (#6)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:00:33 AM EST

Anne,

source of wisdom on the subject of suppressing autopsies,

apparently there is in Colorado a law against firing someone based on lawful activities which are outside the workplace and which do not interfere with the workplace . . . I don't claim that there is such a law in every state . . . but this thread is on how that law in Colorado fits together with med mj use . . .

I might hazard the guess that having a drink at dinner would be one of those "lawful activities." Who knows?

"It is a discriminatory or unfair employment
practice for an employer in Colorado to terminate
the employment of any employee due to that
employee's engaging in any lawful activity off
the premises of the employer during nonworking hours . . ."


Which is the point (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:31:35 AM EST

His activities aren't "lawful," because they still violate federal law.

We don't have to like it, but that is the law. Which you want to discuss. A unanimous Colorado Supreme Court just said so. So have courts in California, Oregon, and (I think) Washington state - not exactly crazy conservative country.

That being said, even if the use of medical mj was not against federal law, an employer still has the right to enact a policy where they say you may not have certain substances in your system, or engage in certain behaviors - even off the clock. (Drug testing should be the most obvious clue). Airline pilots and truck drivers can't drink for so many hours before they operate their equipment. Some companies prohibit smoking or using tobacco products. Some companies restrict or prohibit moonlighting.


<snark> (none / 0) (#37)
by Steve13209 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 12:22:02 PM EST

We wouldn't want Dish network operators making a serious mistake while impaired and signing someone up for something they didn't order, right?


: And if It Weren't for Weed... (none / 0) (#40)
by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 02:49:28 PM EST

...we wouldn't 2075 channels on the TV.

Have you read the decision, or even (none / 0) (#9)
by Anne on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:37:58 AM EST

Jeralyn's post?

The Colorado Court of Appeals said yes, ruling because marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, it isn't a lawful activity under state law protecting employees from being fired for engaging in lawful activities in their off-hours. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed. There were no dissents.

And because you seem to have difficulty following conversations, the point I was making with jbindc is that just because an activity is lawful does not mean employers cannot have their own policies about those activities. Yes, I agree and note that there is a distinction between engaging in those activities in the workplace and on one's own time, but would ask you to consider this: if I get so wasted on alcohol in my off-hours that I am still legally drunk when I arrive at work, I'm pretty sure that if my employer has an alcohol policy that I'd be in violation of it, even if I didn't do the drinking while on the job. If I test positive for marijuana in a workplace test, and my employer has a policy about drug use on or off the job, I'm probably in trouble.

You might want to consider changing your screen name to downtherabbithole, as that's where your comments seem to take people.

It makes no sense to me, from a medical perspective, that someone who cannot get relief for his or her condition using medications that are legal under both federal and state law, is risking his or her job by using physician-prescribed medical marijuana during the employee's off hours.

We have a long way to go, on many fronts.


In Colorado . . . (2.00 / 1) (#14)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 10:10:48 AM EST

In Colorado, if you engage in lawful activities outside the workplace . . . and if those lawful activities does not create a bona fide interference with the workplace or one's work . . . and if those lawful activities do not create a conflict of interest or the reasonable perception of a conflict of interest . . .

then . . .

at least as best as I can read the Colorado law, employers can't create policies to forbid those lawful activities . . . assuming that they are lawful by both state and federal law.

I realize that med mj is an a special category due to the fed prohibition and the simultaneous state allowance . . . and I also realize that other states do not necessarily have the same law on lawful activity protection as does Colorado . . .

My original post on the topic was to state that the actions of DISH were morally reprehensible . . . and one of my 2ndary posts was to state the Colorado law on discrimination re lawful activities, given that Anne was claiming that drinking is one that would be governed in some cases . . .

and the law is fairly straightfoward, conduct which would detrimentally affect work can be prohibited, but other lawful conduct can't be prohibited by an employer's policy.


Okay, you're not getting it. (none / 0) (#16)
by Anne on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 10:21:41 AM EST

From the Court's ruling (my bold/underlining):

[...]under the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, 13 C.R.S. (2014), Colorado's "lawful activities statute," the term "lawful" refers only to those activities that are 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

Do you understand that if something is not lawful under both federal and state law that it cannot be classified as a lawful activity that there is no protection under the "lawful activities" statute?

No, I guess you don't.


Anne, you seem to routinely misunderstand (none / 0) (#32)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 04:22:10 AM EST

you seem to routinely misunderstand me or misattribute me or miss portions of what I have written.

For example, I wrote,

"I realize that med mj is an a special category due to the fed prohibition and the simultaneous state allowance ."

and you responded, in part, with the claim, that I don't get it.

Yes, I in fact do understand the decision of the Col Supreme Court. The Col SC does not regard med mj use as a lawful activity for the purposes of the anti-discrimination law because it is not lawful as measured by federal law and they are taking the term lawful to refer to what is lawful by both fed and state law. There. . .

You do realize that, among other things, whether for good or for ill, I managed to change the public and official understanding of the IE exposure law as found in the RCW and applied in Seattle . . . back in 2003 . . . by simply filing a lawsuit that quoted the law and showed how it was being routinely misapplied in one particular case? You believe that I somehow don't understand the lawful can have one meaning in one context and a different meaning in another . . .?

Oh . . . about the lawsuit in 2003 . . . It did not "win in court" . . . It only won in the court of public opinion and the newspapers with the result that after reading the law, the police said they wouldn't arrest the nude bicyclists at the Solstice parade . . . Oh, well . . . I am surely a dunce with no understanding!

For what it matters, I grew up in an environment with a relative whom some persons may regard as mentally ill . . . and one of that persons routine tactics was to habitually "misunderstand" what another person was saying, so as to make it more obviously false or wrong . . . when that person wished to make that person appear right by claiming the other person was a dense idiot . . .

If you believe I am in error in some post, in this thread or another, may I recommend you do me the courtesy of incorporating a quotation from the post you are refuting . . . and then, disagreeing with that quotation?

I think it may reduce the times you allege that I don't get it!


I find that you latch on to one or (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 06:35:25 AM EST

more points that matter to you, and then close your eyes to the reality of what is actually happening.

We understand you just fine, we just believe you are out in left field most of the time, failing to grasp that there's a baseball game going on because you're too busy looking for 4-leaf clovers.

Perhaps your need to expose yourself to strangers has led you here, but I have to say I find you to be an altogether strange person with interests that border on the perverse.

You give me a big case of the creeps.


when in "error" or lack undrstnding (none / 0) (#34)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 08:37:55 AM EST

I have visited talkleft on and off over the years and the first visits had nothing to do with what you consider my desire to expose myself . . . I enjoy learning, arguing, including learning about the law . . . I enjoy learning about mistakes and problems causing injustice . . . and so, visiting talkleft is a natural fit to my interests, whether I walk in undies in public or not.

If and when you wish to demonstrate that I am in error, you are welcome to create a quotation of me and include it within one or more of your posts.

As in, "you write, '. . .' but . . ."

or "zaitz has written, '. . .' but in fact . . ."

I think that the use of quotations, if and when you are discussing my posts, will go a long way to showing whether or not I am spreading error or do not understand things. I hope it is not too much to ask of you; I assume your skills include being able to include a quotation from one of my posts into one of yours, for the purpose of discussion and refutation?

And, by the way, since I am not infallible, sooner or later I may make a mistake and have to admit it, and that is fine . . . tis not a problem, since I a human and not God. Some say, To err is human and I am certainly subject to error.

However, if you wish to attribute error--or lack of understanding to me--then, please consider identifying the error and quoting it from one of my posts, which I notice that, even after I have asked you to do so, you neglected to do.

Also, you do realize that we are separated by a certain degree of anonymity . . . I am not sure how well I am creeping you out, my being in Seattle and your perhaps being in some Eastern city in some Eastern state . . . I'll try to not be walking in undies in Baltimore. Perhaps you will be less mentally concerned!


Zaitz, perhaps you may not realize (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Zorba on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 05:52:28 PM EST

that going around in undies, approaching women, in particular, and offering hugs might be considered rather threatening by at least some women.
It seems that you are a male, so I do not think that you have any experience as a female with being sexually harassed or sexually assaulted. This is not something that many women take lightly. It has been, and remains, a reality in our lives.
You might, just might, want to consider this.
Namaste.


Not to be OT (none / 0) (#42)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 06:58:07 PM EST

but something I just discovered. Business insider calls it weird. I would add creepy.

Inside Red Pill, The Weird New Cult For Men Who Don't Understand Women

A site called we hunted the mammoth is sort of like their Media Matters


: Oy! (none / 0) (#43)
by Zorba on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 08:07:08 PM EST

Well, I talked to Son Zorba about this, and he basically said that (in his opinion) these are men who are not only totally clueless and self-centered, but they are also worried about their own self worth and masculinity.
Or, as he put it, "losers" who want to blame somebody for their own failings.
And again I say, Oy!

Thanks Zorba . . . (none / 0) (#44)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 01:35:49 AM EST

Thanks for the thought Zorba.

I am at least somewhat aware of "your" concern or the more generalized concern of some women.

Does it help you to know that I do not "approach" women or girls on my walks at Greenlake (or downtown Seattle) except in the sense that I walk normally around the lake on, or next to, the walking path . . . and that normal walk includes in fact giving persons several feet of space to the left or right while passing them . . . and that even when persons invite me over for hugs or conversation, that I stop outside of arms distance and usually in fact 5 or more feet away from them . . . and if they desire a hug, I stand stationary with open arms and let them come to me, if they desire to come to me . . .

If I were approaching women and girls in the sense in which you are thinking, I assume that there would in fact be a lot more complaints and/or calls about me . . . and that on some walks, I may pass or pass by 700 or more people on a sunny summer afternoon and there be often no 911 calls which are made about me and which are logged into the Seattle online crime map?

I do not touch persons without their permission and even an approach with their invitation results in my stopping at 5 to 15 feet away till she or they are making it clear that she or they wishes a further approach.

As a result, on a walk, it is relatively easy for all persons on a walk whom I pass or who pass me on the walking path to do so by ignoring me in the sense of not paying further attention to me . . .

The ordinance seeks only to keep these films from being seen from public streets and places where the offended viewer readily can avert his eyes. In short, the screen of a drive-in theater is not "so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it." Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767, 386 U. S. 769 (1967). Thus, we conclude that the limited privacy interest of persons on the public streets cannot justify this censorship of otherwise protected speech on the basis of its content. [Footnote 9]

The above is a quote from a SC decision re the 1st amendment about a theatre owner and a city in Florida re the showing of some films including nudity at a drive-in theatre. The SC says that those who might be irritated can solve the problem by averting their eyes. On my walks at Greenlake,
it is clear to all that I am approaching no one in particular and even making it a point to give people plenty of space.

25 years ago I went to church where people are awfully polite . . . everybody hugged, but I or others do not hug without consent or permission . . even of others at church . . .

I do what I can to be polite and to let those who wish, the vast majority, ignore my presence and be just fine with ignoring me!


tacit admission? (none / 0) (#35)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 09:01:05 AM EST

"I find that you latch on to one or more
points that matter to you . . ."

Would you be admitting that on those points that do matter to me . . . I state the situation accurately and fairly and that I support assertions with evidence and reason?

How about this one . . .

*
There are many, many, many times that autopsy results are released prior to trial and trial takes place later and the pre-trial release of autopsy results is rarely, if ever, believed to have prejudiced the jury, by the mere fact of their pre-trial release. The main possible exception seems to be whether or not gruesome photos of a horrific means of death be shown and judges at times withhold such photos prior to trial, though I am uncertain as to how often such release of such photos would in fact prejudice a future jury, if done before trial.
*

Perhaps this is another of my lack of understandings or errors . . . one that it appears you have neglected to quote (in whatever words I used originally) or paraphrase . . .?

Perhaps this is a thesis on which there is just no evidence available on which to form a conclusion?


You're starting to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by sj on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM EST

blog clog again, unconvicted. Your comments are just full of nonsensical land mines -- most of which are completely off-topic and are all about you, you, you.

Your need for attention also gives me a big case of the creeps. Frankly, I wish I could un-see your website.

...also jims...


We all have our points of view, (none / 0) (#39)
by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 01:04:47 PM EST

and most of us are pretty passionate about them, but by truncating my initial sentence, you have left off the actual point of that sentence:

The entire sentence, of which I have bolded the part you left off, is:

I find that you latch on to one or more points that matter to you and then close your eyes to the reality of what is actually happening.

As to your accurate-fair-supported-by-evidence-and-reason metric, let's go through the excerpt you posted. My comments are in bold:

There are many, many, many times that autopsy results are released prior to trial [this may be true, but I don't see any evidence to support the assertion]and trial takes place later and the pre-trial release of autopsy results is rarely, if ever, believed to have prejudiced the jury [I don't see any citations or links to support this assertion - where did it come from?], by the mere fact of their pre-trial release. The main possible exception [again, where is the support for this assertion?]seems to be whether or not gruesome photos of a horrific means of death be shown and judges at times withhold such photos prior to trial, though I am uncertain as to how often such release of such photos would in fact prejudice a future jury, if done before trial.

Absent links to actual statistics or studies or research, what you've stated as fact is little more than your opinion, based on common sense or perhaps, marathon viewing of Law and Order in all its iterations.

And it fails to take into account that decisions made on any case are not done on the basis of "what everyone else is doing," but on the facts, circumstances, rules and other procedural dictates that control.

As for the Colorado ruling that is the subject of Jeralyn's post, you seemed unable, for quite a few posts, to grasp that in order for an activity to be deemed "lawful," it had to be legal under both federal and state law in order for people to be protected by the Lawful Activities statute.


: with the respect to autopsy findings (none / 0) (#45)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 01:47:21 AM EST

With respect to autopsy findings . . .
you seem to have graduated from charging me with being in error to merely charging me with making an assertion for which, in your view, I lack numerical or statistical proof.
Thanks for the graduation to this new level of more accurate understanding!
*
I am well aware that there are federal and state and local laws which may have the same topic or topics of crime being prohibited, or not . . . I am currently working on circulating one of the initiative petitions in Washington state with exactly that situation on the prohibition of importing or trading body parts of nearly extinct species, for which there is federal prohibition but no current state prohibition. I have been circulating that petition for about 2 months.
In some cities or counties there are somewhat overlapping county and state laws or city and state laws . . . and shooting a postal worker is probably illegal by both state and federal laws in Washington state.
I worked circulating the initiative petitions in Washington for med mj and then the more recent mj law change.
Is there something in particular which you think I said that reflects a perceived lack of my understanding that the Col SC took the word lawful--so far as concerns this discrimination case appeal-- to refer to being lawful by both fed and state law?
I can tell you that, as a petition signature gatherer, that if I could not explain to persons who asked the relationship between state and federal law on either trading body parts of elephants or med mj, I would be (or would have been) at a severe disadvantage, given that I am asked that asked questions related to how the petition itself relates to federal law a few times a day?

: for the last two months (none / 0) (#46)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 01:54:53 AM EST

For the last two months, I have circulating
the initiative about which you can read here.
There is currently a federal prohibition on the importation of such things as horns of rhinos . . . but no law in the state of Washington prohibits the trading in such body parts, currently.
Do you think I have had some difficulty understanding the fact that there is a federal prohibition on this topic and no current state prohibition or in explaining this to persons who ask?
Do you wish to remind me or us of a sentence in one of my posts (which I have no opportunity to edit) which reflects an incorrect or only partial understanding of how the Col SC used the term lawful?

Maybe because there aren't any legal drugs (none / 0) (#10)
by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:43:37 AM EST

That can take the place of medical MJ.


The laws have not kept up with the (none / 0) (#15)
by Anne on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 10:14:18 AM EST

science, and I fear one reason for that is the threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

Not to mention that we have an entire industry devoted to the War on Drugs, which may be one of the dumbest wars ever.

If I have documented prescriptions for any medications/drugs, I should be able to take them whether I am on or off the job because my health depends on it. Which is not to say that if my job performance is affected by the drugs I take that my employer shouldn't have something to say about it, but to force someone to make a choice between their health and their job makes no sense to me. At all.


The other reason (none / 0) (#29)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 02:33:43 PM EST

or one other reason is that pot is still a schedule 1 drug. I have read that makes legitimate research and getting research money very difficult since by definition schedule one drugs have no legitimate medical use.

Clearly pot does but there it is. One of the primary reason it needs to be changed.

We live in hope.


: hope is all we have today. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by NYShooter on Wed Jun 17, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM EST

As I have written in these threads before, some of the most promising studies on the treatment of our most devastating, and, intractable mental disorders (psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.) were being conducted back in the 1960's. Tremendous progress was being made by medical specialists until the DEA got involved. By refusing to grant indemnity from prosecution for the doctors performing those studies, the research was stopped cold.

And... (none / 0) (#7)
by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:21:49 AM EST

...are companies operating in many states suppose to have separate rules for CO employees. Seems unlikely.

But firing a quadriplegic that answers phones is pretty damn ruthless considering the crime isn't even a crime.

What we need is some sort of law in which people who are in positions that can't, in anyway, hurt anyone, aren't being tested for off duty behaviors.


: a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 10:00:20 AM EST

Here is an idea for initiative sponsors or legislators in Colorado . . .
drug testing for off-workplace use may not be used in a variety of occupations, such as, customer service telephone clerk or sales rap telephone person . . .

on the morality . . . (none / 0) (#5)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 08:54:38 AM EST

I used to go to a church in which we loved to learn and to think and to argue and to come to conclusions based on evidence . . . So, now, I have a certain joy in learning about the law and legal disputes and I have a sense of moral outrage about certain idiotic actions by some.

It may well be that the people who created the amendment to be put on the ballot in Colorado (if I even know the ballot history right) put that language in their to help ease passage for their new part of the constitution of the state . . . I used to be LDS and do not use drugs or alcohol and have not forever . . . I still have outrage at people who would fire a paralyzed man on the basis that he used some weed for a medical condition . . .


You REALLY wanna go down the morality road? (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 11:22:15 AM EST

Seems to me you wouldn't like it when groups with interests different from yours use the morality argument to lobby for and pass legislation. See: gay marriage, abortion, etc.


that's a bit disingenuous (none / 0) (#30)
by CST on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 02:51:09 PM EST

Most laws are based loosely on a social moral code.

There is a reason these things used to be illegal and aren't as illegal anymore - the moral code of society is changing and as they change so do the laws.


: Sure (none / 0) (#31)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 03:15:05 PM EST

But my point is absolutely valid. There's certainly been a lot of discussion around here about laws that shouldn't be made because if other people's morality - for example, medicine is getting better and technology is improving, so maybe there will be a day when abortion is illegal again because hey, you can see that something is living inside the womb. Shrug - some people think it's immoral to come to work with THC in your system. The company thinks it would be unfair to give a pass to him where other people wouldn't be given a pass.
Do I think it's unfair to this guy? Sure, he has spasms, but he also knew of the policy when he started the job. I haven't read if he tried other options.
So, no, I'm not being disingenuous because you understood me perfectly. Rather it is you who is being disingenuous. Of COURSE all our laws are based on moral codes, but the only morality you don't want reflected in the law are the moral stands you don't agree with. Zazz's argument is just not a very good one.

Colorado SC (none / 0) (#4)
by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 08:47:04 AM EST

Well that's going to put a serious damper on the Colorado marijuana migration movement.

The simple answer is... (none / 0) (#11)
by fishcamp on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 09:43:50 AM EST

Don't mention it to anyone at work. We know mj stays in your system for a long time anyway. This person should go with edibles, if his morning toke doesn't last long enough. And what happened to the low THC high canibinoid medical version?

He failed drug tests (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 10:01:07 AM EST

Can't be honest... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 12:01:19 PM EST

with them piss tests either...that's what GNC is for.

What I can't figure out is why Dish Network is piss testing telephone operators in the first place...that's ridiculous. The CEO should be fired, not this poor f*ckin' guy.


Was he tested? Or merely (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 12:29:41 PM EST

slow transferring calls?


JB said he failed... (none / 0) (#21)
by kdog on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:00:49 PM EST

her word is bond! ;) Though I'd say the gentleman passed, "doctors orders!"

Slow transferring calls would be an improvement...usually I get hung up on when calling my boobtube dealer.


More likely: he accidentally told the truth (none / 0) (#22)
by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:22:38 PM EST

: Read the opinion (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:51:53 PM EST

He did tell his employers why he failed.

Between 2007 and 2010, Coats worked for respondent Dish as a telephone customer service representative.
In May 2010, Coats tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), a component of medical marijuana, during a random drug test. Coats informed Dish that he was a registered medical marijuana patient and planned to continue using medical marijuana. On June 7, 2010, Dish fired Coats for violating the company's drug policy.

Yes, he failed a random drug (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 02:30:55 PM EST

test:

The worker, Brandon Coats, was fired from Dish Network in
2010 after testing positive for marijuana in a random drug test.


Dish Network is very bad (none / 0) (#20)
by fishcamp on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 12:34:22 PM EST

down here. They send a rep down from Miami to check out the house, but are really casing the location for later break ins. When the guy was here I asked him to wait for me before going up stairs as I was on the phone. He went up by himself anyway. I kicked him out of my house. They caught some Dish guys friends in a break in, and the robbers snitched out the Dish guy.

: I am so totally (none / 0) (#27)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 02:16:42 PM EST

not surprised to hear this. I had Dish Network and one time and I told my husband to have my head examined if I ever considered having them again. My whole experience with them was nothing but cheesy sleaze. I bet this guy they fired was better as his job than the sober ones they seem to hire.

Brilliant PR for Dish: (none / 0) (#23)
by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:25:35 PM EST

Dropping the hammer on a quadriplegic. What's next, having their installers run down children playing in the street?

: They won't be back (none / 0) (#24)
by fishcamp on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:31:21 PM EST

To this street

: Glad I dropped their arse... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Tue Jun 16, 2015 at 01:38:02 PM EST

Ironically, trees were the reason I dropped them too...they wanted me to cut mine down as they were interfering with the signal. F*ck that...trees are prettier than tv.
Unfortunately I'm sure my current supplier is all up in their wage slave's piss too...and that ain't right.
Is there a master listing of companies that do not piss test that anyone has seen, so a concerned citizen knows where to steer their business?