Colorado court: Workers can be fired for using marijuana off-duty

[flowers]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/15/colorado-court-workers-can-be-fired-for-using-marijuana-off-duty/?intcmp=trending

using marijuana off-duty
Published June 15, 2015
Associated Press
Facebook0 Twitter0 Email Print   

Colorado's Supreme Court has ruled that a medical marijuana patient who was fired after failing a drug test cannot get his job back.

The case has big implications for employers and pot smokers in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational pot in 2012.

Though the Colorado case involves medical marijuana, the court's decision could also affect how companies treat employees who use the drug recreationally.

Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic who was fired by Dish Network after failing a drug test in 2010. The company agreed that Coats wasn't high on the job but said it h

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

That makes no sense.

How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?

This decision will be challenged and probably overturned.

[Dexter]

That makes no sense.

How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?

This decision will be challenged and probably overturned.

I doubt it will be overturned. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a substance has to be illegal for your employer to fire you for using it.

[EC]

It will be overturned. Flies directly in the face of the ADA to do this, since it is medical use, and therefore presumably prescribed. Just like you can't fire someone for using prescription painkillers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I doubt it will be overturned. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think a substance has to be illegal for your employer to fire you for using it.

In Colorado an employee cannot be fired for lawful conduct, off-site during non-working hours.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Brandon Coats is a quadriplegic...

Yes, he's going to win all appeals.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ That makes no sense.
How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?
This decision will be challenged and probably overturned.   ]]

Not by the United States Supreme Court, Luis.

That court has already affirmed that employees can be disciplined or terminated for the use of certain drugs during "free time" (read on).

I was a railroad locomotive engineman for 32+ years (for Conrail, Amtrak and Metro-North).

This issue first came before the courts after the Federal Railroad Administration put into place regulations regarding railroad employee drug use and testing.

One of those regulations prohibited the use of illegal drugs not only "on duty", but OFF DUTY as well. That is to say, if one is a railroad employee in a "safety sensitive" position, that employee is prohibited from any usage of certain drugs AT ALL. And such employees are subject to random drug testing, that will enable the employer to discover such usage.

I believe it was either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, or the United Transportation Union (which represents conductors and trainmen) that filed suit over this regulation, and that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court UPHELD the regulation and as such, railroad employees can be disciplined and/or dismissed for off duty drug use as well as being under the influence while on duty.

It's been this way since at least the mid 1990's.

I believe the airlines may also have such a policy as well for their own personnel in safety-sensitive positions.

One might argue that (at least in Colorado) marijuana is no longer classified as an "illegal" drug. But I doubt any case can be made there, based both on the Colorado court ruling as mentioned in the article, or the reality that marijuana -- whether legal or illegal -- can be considered a behavior-altering drug.

It's quite possible that this may get adjudicated all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the precedent already exists (see above) to uphold the Colorado decision.

[alicewonders]

This is mostly based on the thought that marijuana stays in your system 30 days, much longer than alcohol does.  But, I'd like to see some studies on the length of time that the intoxicating effects linger, since marijuana is a fat soluble substance and would be stored in your body longer. 

Still, I think a company should have the right to hire and fire who they want - so as long as they stipulate that up front, an employee knows the rules.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote above:
[[ That makes no sense.
How can you be fired from your job for doing something completely legal on your own time?
This decision will be challenged and probably overturned.   ]]

Not by the United States Supreme Court, Luis.

That court has already affirmed that employees can be disciplined or terminated for the use of certain drugs during "free time" (read on).

I was a railroad locomotive engineman for 32+ years (for Conrail, Amtrak and Metro-North).

This issue first came before the courts after the Federal Railroad Administration put into place regulations regarding railroad employee drug use and testing.

One of those regulations prohibited the use of illegal drugs not only "on duty", but OFF DUTY as well. That is to say, if one is a railroad employee in a "safety sensitive" position, that employee is prohibited from any usage of certain drugs AT ALL. And such employees are subject to random drug testing, that will enable the employer to discover such usage.

I believe it was either the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, or the United Transportation Union (which represents conductors and trainmen) that filed suit over this regulation, and that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court UPHELD the regulation and as such, railroad employees can be disciplined and/or dismissed for off duty drug use as well as being under the influence while on duty.

It's been this way since at least the mid 1990's.

I believe the airlines may also have such a policy as well for their own personnel in safety-sensitive positions.

One might argue that (at least in Colorado) marijuana is no longer classified as an "illegal" drug. But I doubt any case can be made there, based both on the Colorado court ruling as mentioned in the article, or the reality that marijuana -- whether legal or illegal -- can be considered a behavior-altering drug.

It's quite possible that this may get adjudicated all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the precedent already exists (see above) to uphold the Colorado decision.

The Colorado Supreme Court basically ceded supremacy to the Federal Courts, saying that the fact that marijuana was legalized in Colorado, and in spite of Colorado statutes which make it unlawful for employers to fire anyone for lawful conduct off-site during nonwork hours, the term "lawful" only means under both State and Federal laws.

That's disturbing. The employee is a quadriplegic with a prescription for medical marijuana that he used off-site during nonwork hours, yet the State's Supreme Court stepped over State laws choosing instead to write their opinion based on Federal laws.

The Federal power to make marijuana illegal is tenuous at best. It relies on a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

The Congress shall have Power To... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.

There is no Interstate Commerce issue here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is mostly based on the thought that marijuana stays in your system 30 days, much longer than alcohol does.  But, I'd like to see some studies on the length of time that the intoxicating effects linger, since marijuana is a fat soluble substance and would be stored in your body longer. 

Still, I think a company should have the right to hire and fire who they want - so as long as they stipulate that up front, an employee knows the rules.

I agree that companies should have the power to hire and fire at will, but should they be able to fire you because you are using legally-obtained prescriptions for pain killers or sleeping pills to help you overcome some sort of medical issue that makes it difficult for you to sleep?

[alicewonders]

I agree that companies should have the power to hire and fire at will, but should they be able to fire you because you are using legally-obtained prescriptions for pain killers or sleeping pills to help you overcome some sort of medical issue that makes it difficult for you to sleep?

I don't think they should as long it is not adversely affecting your job performance.  I don't like this punishing people before they do something wrong - if you're doing a good job, showing up everyday, it shouldn't matter what you do on your off time - ESPECIALLY if it is legally prescribed and doesn't affect your job performance.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ I agree that companies should have the power to hire and fire at will, but should they be able to fire you because you are using legally-obtained prescriptions for pain killers or sleeping pills to help you overcome some sort of medical issue that makes it difficult for you to sleep? ]]

FRA regulations prohibit employees from being under the influence of prescription and even over-the-counter medications that may impair one's performance on the job.

Legally-obtained ... or not. Makes no difference.
It's the -effect- that the drug has on the person that is the determinant, not legal status.

I realize this grates against your libertarian notions, Luis, but if you want to work on the railroad, that's how it is.

I don't think you're going to find many (any?) court forums in which you're going to win on this...

[truth_seeker]

This is mostly based on the thought that marijuana stays in your system 30 days, much longer than alcohol does.  But, I'd like to see some studies on the length of time that the intoxicating effects linger, since marijuana is a fat soluble substance and would be stored in your body longer. 

Still, I think a company should have the right to hire and fire who they want - so as long as they stipulate that up front, an employee knows the rules.

So a company could require that their employees not drink alcohol when off duty?

[alicewonders]

So a company could require that their employees not drink alcohol when off duty?

They should not drink right before coming to work, or whenever your state says you are intoxicated.  If you drink the night before, you should be sober the next day because alcohol metabolizes faster than pot.  I would like to see a study that tracks how long marijuana still affects things like coordination, sobriety, etc - since it stays in the body longer.  I could see if you're an airline pilot, where it might be extremely important that you be completely sober to properly do your job. 

If you are an artist, flower arranger or other creative occupation - it might not hinder you - as long as you don't drive that way!

[olde north church]

So a company could require that their employees not drink alcohol when off duty?

They can fire people who smoke tobacco.  "Mommy State" likee.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They can fire people who smoke tobacco.  "Mommy State" likee.

Those laws chage State by State.

In Colorado, employers cannot fire employees for lawful conduct, off-site during no work hours.

A common animus toward marijuana notwithstanding.

P.S. Alcohol has quite a lingering effect. Anyone who doesn't think so has never worked side by side with an alcoholic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

OK, let's try something.

By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?

[DCPatriot]

OK, let's try something.

By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?

IMO, it depends on your current overall state of mind.   Some as alcohol.

Some people are "mean drunks".  Some get uninhibited.  I fall asleep.

I have never met a mean marijuana high.   And unlike drinking, they tell me you wake up in the morning completely 'normal'.   

[olde north church]

OK, let's try something.

By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?

More than once, maybe a dozen times.  Didn't like it.  Did nothing for me.  Didn't like the way it made me feel.  I kept on waiting for the buzz.  Oon-gotz (that's some sort of slang for "nothing").

[Luis Gonzalez]

IMO, it depends on your current overall state of mind.   Some as alcohol.

Some people are "mean drunks".  Some get uninhibited.  I fall asleep.

I have never met a mean marijuana high.   And unlike drinking, they tell me you wake up in the morning completely 'normal'.   

Exactly.

The chemical lingers in your body, but not the effects. There's a reason why people have to be tested for marijuana use: there are few ( if any) visible lingering effects, whereas I can smell the alcohol oozing out of a person's body the morning (and day) after the drunk. I can see (and feel) the impact of getting drunk the next day, where nothing of the sort happens with marijuana.

I've never seen or heard of someone high on weed beating (or killing) their spouse then using the fact that try smoked weed as a reason. The Manson family were habitual hallucinogenic users, not just weed smokers.

P.S. The REAL "threshold" drug is nicotine.

[Luis Gonzalez]

P.S. I was a habitual weed smoker for decades. Drank quite a bit, but never enough to be considered alcoholism. 

It came with being a working musician at the time, AND Steely Dan sounds way better when you're stoned.

[alicewonders]

OK, let's try something.

By a show of hands, who here has smoked marijuana (more than "tried it, didn't like it")?

I smoked it regularly in my youth and lots of times since.  I prefer it ti alcohol, as alcohol abuse has almost gotten me killed and it has gotten me arrested in the past.  I drank alcohol for all the wrong reasons.  Pot never treated me like that - I find that it takes the rough edges off of life without causing me to act like a jerk.

[DCPatriot]

I smoked it regularly in my youth and lots of times since.  I prefer it ti alcohol, as alcohol abuse has almost gotten me killed and it has gotten me arrested in the past.  I drank alcohol for all the wrong reasons.  Pot never treated me like that - I find that it takes the rough edges off of life without causing me to act like a jerk.

Geesh....I shouldn't be admitting this on a web forum but what the hell....

My sons and I....we've had a decades-long 'thing' where we'd all go to see a movie together.  They were all over the age of 21 when we would smoke some weed before entering the theater.

It has provided us wonderful memories to which we still hold our stomachs laughing our heads off.

I can still 'see' Adam crouched down in his seat, his mouth agape, staring intently at the screen.   He loves Star Wars to this day.   His twin Bret, after graduating from Emory University went out and bought himself a $1500 light saber, which he uses every Halloween when he dresses as Darth Vader.

He said it was the weed to this day.   Love my boys.   

[aligncare]

Let's face it, if you're in your 60's you grew up in the 60's and probably used. In my group we didn't use alcohol, instead we used every other chemical that happened to be circulating the streets that day.

[mountaineer]

I have not used mj or any other illegal drug, mostly because I saw what a jerk my druggie older brother was and still is. He's not exactly an advertisement for the product.

But our own personal experiences really aren't relevant to the question of whether an employer should be able to fire a drug user.