Employers Can Fire You For Using Marijuana, But Brandon Coats' Case Could Change Everything

[aGameOfThrones]

Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient from Colorado, was fired by Dish Network in 2010 for taking his medicine while off duty, in the privacy of his own home.

Coats, who uses medical marijuana to treat debilitating muscle spasms from a spinal injury that left him in a wheelchair, had been a model employee. But Dish Network’s zero-tolerance drug policy prohibits marijuana use, even for medical reasons. When Coats, a customer service representative, tested positive for cannabis during a routine drug test, he was immediately terminated. Because marijuana remains illegal on the federal level, employers can fire a medical marijuana patient who fails a drug test, even in states where it's legal for medical use.

“It was devastating,” said Coats, 34. “I had that job for three years. I was dependent on that for my life.”

Coats sued the satellite television giant for wages and benefits in 2011, alleging that he had been illegally fired. His attorney, Michael Evans, argued that the THC found in Coats’ body during the drug test did not prove that he was intoxicated at work. He added that Coats never used marijuana on the job, never requested special accommodations for his medical marijuana use, didn’t exhibit poor job performance and never endangered the health or well-being of any person at Dish.

In 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the company's right to fire Coats, but earlier this year, the state Supreme Court announced it will hear Coats' case. He and Evans will file their opening brief on Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...usaolp00000592

[specsaregood]

//

[DamianTV]

Its always been the trouble with pot. Smoking a bowl does not make a person stoned for an entire month.

[UtahApocalypse]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

[dannno]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

[Deborah K]

I usually consider medical marijuana bull$#@! and a cop-out from full on decriminalization. However:

I've seen that in action on a number of quads and it really really works. I've seen guys go from uncontrollable legs spasming like a dying squirrel in the roadway to perfectly still in only a matter of a puff or 2. Near instant relief.

My son-in-law is a tetraplegic from a devastating motorcycle accident. His neurologist gave him marinol during his 3 month hospital stay. Marinol is cannabis for those who don't know. Leg spasms are also called "toning", and they are extremely painful. Cannabis does give instant relief. I hope this case is won. Cannabis has many other uses too.

[Deborah K]

Wow, this is a complex issue when you really break it down.

First you have the Federal law (which may or may not be correct, that debate is for another place) Then the State Law, Then you have discrimination over disability, on top of all that almost everyone will forget the most important though.... The employer, who I personally believe should have the right to hire and fire whoever they choose for any reason the want.

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

[mrsat_98]

I usually consider medical marijuana bull$#@! and a cop-out from full on decriminalization.

So it's ok with you for government to reduce us to the equivalent of an animal ?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ya technically you are correct however I feel like companies do it as a matter of decades old, cob webbed filled policy and the policies won't change until lawsuits are filed. Then the insurance companies will change their tune. Although any protections people receive from other prescription drugs should probably be applied equally to cannabis until those laws can be repealed.

If this was a mom n pop shop or if if the guy who fired him was actually the owner of the company rather than a bunch of corporate non-sense then I might say strategy wise it would be better to attack it from the corporate angle than a mom n pop shop guy.

This is a tough one. I say if it doesn't create any new laws, then Coats should win his lawsuit and the company should change its policies. Sure, they have the right to fire people for any reason, but this is just ridiculous. Marijuana never hurt anyone and that guy really needs it. The company isn't going to go broke over one lawsuit, so I really do hope he wins and it brings about a change in company policy. Companies need to stop treating marijuana prohibition as valid and start treating it as an unreasonable infringement by government on evidence that is scientifically bogus.

[PaulConventionWV]

An employer doesn't have the right to dictate to their employees what they can consume on their own time.

Technically, it's not a mater of rights. The employer does have the right to dictate how employees spend their time if they want to keep their job. They're not actually prohibiting the employee from doing anything under threat of violence... however, I'm going to come down on the side of the employee on this one simply because of the implications.

[specsaregood]

So it's ok with you for government to reduce us to the equivalent of an animal ?

You are gonna have explain your thought process in a bit of detail to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.

[JK/SEA]

You are gonna have explain your thought process in a bit of detail to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.

simple, and here's what i do...i answer bull$#@! with more bull$#@!...

[acptulsa]

What we need is enough regulation relief to turn the economy around. Then these corporate psychos who make these bizarre decisions from board rooms far, far away from the production floor, and allow themselves to be unduly influenced by their underwriters, can simply go out of business after firing all their best, most productive people, and finding themselves without a mass of ready replacements on the unemployment rolls.

Trade unionism has nothing on a free market for labor--if the economy is good enough for there to be a demand. Most of the problems this nation faces today are a result of a corporatist government trashing the economy. Fix that and we fix a great many things.

[Deborah K]

Technically, it's not a mater of rights. The employer does have the right to dictate how employees spend their time if they want to keep their job. They're not actually prohibiting the employee from doing anything under threat of violence... however, I'm going to come down on the side of the employee on this one simply because of the implications.

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

[DamianTV]

Limitations of Rights creates a Balance of Rights.

When the Rights of one side or the other are given preferencial treatment, the equal Rights of the others are imposed on. I believe a normal and reasonable limitation of Rights of Employers ends when it comes to the lives of the Employees. Should an Employer have a Right to terminate an employee? Depends on when or where the violation occured. At work? Reasonably, damn right. At home? Reasonably, probably not. What if an employee commits a Felony while not at work? I think that falls into the category of "reasonable".

What I think we are seeing is prefencial Rights being granted to Employers that extends well beyond Reasonable, so lets just head into the category of ridiculus for the thought experiment. Say an Employer wants to terminate an employee for wiping their asses, at home, with too many sheets of non employer approved toilet paper. Is it within their Right to do so? Some will argue yes, however what is not considered is if the Rights of the employee were first violated in order to gain that information. They violated a reasonable Human Right to Privacy in order to obtain information to terminate them. That is beyond the scope of the Rights of the Employer because the reasonable Right of the Employee were first violated, thus making the termination an extension of that violation.

The goal is Reasonable Rights and Reasonable Limits. The problem is there are less and less Employers that will not respect Reasonable Rights. It might be within the scope of an agreement between the Employer and Employee, but damn near EVERY Employer is now demanding access to information that has absolutely no relevance to the job. We may agree that it would be Reasonable for an Emergency Responder to be required by their Employer to abstain from alcohol, period, as a condition of their employment. However, we would not consider the same application of that requirement in a different situation. Much of it depends on the situation. But what we are running into is Employers grouping together to demand that knowing how many sheets of paper an Employee wipes his ass with while NOT at work is a prerequisite for Employment. If there were truly a Balance, then Employees would refuse to work for abusive Employers. But due to the lack of work available, people are forced into a situation where they either begrudgingly accept abusive terms in order to get a job, or not work at all.

Im sure there are those who would claim Private Property, Contract Law, and other defenses against the argument in favor of an Employer. So let me also defend your side of the story. What happens when that Balance is shifted to favor the Employee over an Employer? Abuse is also enabled on practically every level. Employees who overstep Reasonable Limits of their own Rights can also infringe on the Reasonable Rights of Employers. They may demand too much pay or other things that may be considered relatively Reasonable, so lets again head into the category of absurd. Should an Employee also be able to demand an Employer provide them toilet paper? Should an Employee demand to be allowed to not only drink, but get absolutely rip roarning drunk on the job from ALL Employers? Should an Employeee be able to demand payment for services not provided without reason? Point is, abuse of BOTH parties can exist.

I believe there are a couple of reasonable things that can lead to a solution. First, keep Govt out of the situation as much as possible. Govt causes more problems than they solve. Many Laws are designed to be pre-emptive problem solvers, yet create their own sets of different problems. Next, Free Market. A reasonable Employer will not fire any Employee for wiping their asses with the wrong brand of toilet paper. If the Employees feel that there is an abuse by an Employer that as a group they are unwilling to tolerate, that company would find themselves unable to hire new workers as well as unable to retain current workers. But being Reasonable needs to apply to BOTH sides. A Reasonable Employee would also not demand that an Employer provide them with toilet paper while not at work. Last, the Legal System. I believe Govt involvement in a situation should only apply as a Last Resort, and NOT the first line of defense. There are also different types of Laws that become involved. Legislative solutions are when Laws are applied as a blanket solution, and I dont think is the best course of action. Civil Court however handles situations on a case by case basis, and I think is a better solution, but not to be used as the first go to action. Courts are expected to provide unbiased arbitration. Courts can also decide more than just favoring Plaintiffs or Defendants, they can also throw cases out if they feel that cases are unwarranted.

The potential for abuse comes from many sources and extends itself to others as well. Courts can also be abused. When these disagreements between Employers and Employees become so commonly referred to the Court to resolve their issues, both parties may just as well allow the Courts to run the companies. And that is basically what happens when Legislative gets involved. We, the governing party, will tell you how to run your business. That type of Govt takeover is the result of both sides compaining to Govt to solve all their problems. A better solution (not always practical) would be to encourage those in disagreement to work out a reasonable solution for themselves. "Okay, you cant afford to give me a buck an hour raise, even though you agreed to it, I'll settle for 50 cents." Negotiate. Comprimise. Reasonable. But if either side is shown bias, the willingness to Negotiate and Comprimise goes out the window, at the consequence of Reasonable Limits, which is where the abuse by one side or the other begins.

I have no way of being able to provide a Reasonable Balance between both sides in ALL situations. But I think the better course of action is to not get involved. Encourage a Resonable Balance that is achieved by Negotiation and Comprimise by both sides. Every situation is not only different, but potentially unique. Lets take drinking on the job. Encourage to agree to not get "too drunk" if you are an Emergency Responder, and also encourage a Bar Owner to allow a Bartender to taste their own drinks. I think these Corporations have been shown bias and it has only resulted in the abuse of Employees, however, there are Unions that are way too powerful as well.

There really is no easy solution. In the case of using Pot for ANY reason, maybe the best thing to do is encourage both Negotiation and Comprimise from both sides. An employer could agree to not fire a person for using pot for whatever reason as long as they do not do it at work, and the employee would agree to not go to work while stoned for recreational purposes. First step is both parties have to be willing to communicate with each other, and I really believe that just isnt happening as much as it needs to.

[Wooden Indian]

I don't think it's that complicated at all.

1. The Federal Law is horse crap and needs to be abolished.
2. If a private sector corporation wants to fire anyone for any reason, and I don't care it's for having red hair (or whatever ridiculous reason) they have that right.
3. I would cancel my Dish Net service if I had it based on this story, and hope others will/would do the same.

Then again.. I do tend to over-simplify things for my wee-little brain.

[Deborah K]

I don't think it's that complicated at all.

1. The Federal Law is horse crap and needs to be abolished.
2. If a private sector corporation wants to fire anyone for any reason, and I don't care it's for having red hair (or whatever ridiculous reason) they have that right.
3. I would cancel my Dish Net service if I had it based on this story, and hope others will/would do the same.

Then again.. I do tend to over-simplify things for my wee-little brain.

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bull$#@!.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

[DamianTV]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bull$#@!.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

Devil's Advocate: But but but what if that person "needs" their "medication" to be able to function well enough to do their job?

[Wooden Indian]

I draw the line on #2 at employers dictating what their employees do on their own time, as long as it has no effect on the employer's business. The problem with random drug testing is that THC hangs out for a while in the blood, and firing someone who isn't using it on the job, and isn't high, is just bull$#@!.

So, do you think a religious employer has the right to fire an employee who goes to titty bars on his own time?

I agree that it is bull$#@!. I just don't agree that it should be enforced in anyway by the government. Allow the consumers to rectify the misbehavior with their $$$.
That's all I'm saying.

[mtr1979]

Misleading title "employers can fire you for using Marijuana..." Should be titled employers can fire you for using medical Marijuana. Never saw the problem with a person who has a doctor's prescription and a legit medical issue using marijuana.
With that said I will not associate with habitual pot smokers and when I eventually own my own business I will not hire them.
To all the other threads: yes, I believe an employer can fire an employee for what ever reason they want. If an employer doesn't like the way you walk, swing a hammer, type on your keyboard, your favorite football team, your sense of humor, and the list goes on.

[Nic]

I'm reasonably sure this comes down to the fact that the business is the property of the owner and nobody has the moral right to tell him/her what they can or cannot do with the business. The owner of the business has the right to place whatever stipulations they want on employment at their company.

edit: In no way, shape, or form does that mean I agree with or condone the owner's decision.

[Jamesiv1]

Wait...wut? So, if you like to hang out in titty bars in your off time - you think your religious boss has a right to fire you over it???

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

[asurfaholic]

Its always been the trouble with pot. Smoking a bowl does not make a person stoned for an entire month.

Lies

[Deborah K]

why doesn't a business owner have the right to fire any one he damn well pleases? does an employee have a "right" to his job?

if I am the owner, and I don't like your behavior or your moral values, it's not unreasonable to think you might bring those to my workplace.

you're fired.

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

[mtr1979]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

[Jamesiv1]

Then you're really not that different from the government, if you think you're entitled to dictate to me what I do during my private time. Just sayin'.

no. I'm not dictating at all - you can do whatever you want. you can do it working for someone else, that's all.

I suggest you're position is much more like the government - trying to dictate who a business owner can hire or fire.

[DamianTV]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

Then I wouldnt work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

[Jamesiv1]

Then I wouldn't work for you if you insist on the authority to tell me what I can and can not do while not at work. Very simple free market solution.

Exactly. You can choose not to work for me, I can choose not to let you work for me.

[jonhowe]

I don't really care if I'm no different than the government. When own my own business I will dictate to employees how they are expected to act on and off of work and what substances they put into their body. If I'm working on some dangerous equipment I will not have a guy who is hungover, tweaking, or stone out of his mind next to me. End of story.

That's your right. As the co owner of a small business, I totally understand. However, why not make the rule that no one can come to work hungover, tweaking, or stoned out of their mind? I drink and use marijuana sometimes; I've never been to work stoned, drunk, or hungover. Why not simply hire responsible people?

[Jamesiv1]

Why not simply hire responsible people?

any business owner would agree with that. if I am having a hard time finding responsible people, I might overlook your moral values or your behavior outside the workplace.

The point is simply that a business owner should be able to hire or fire any one he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

It's his dang business, for crying out loud. Government shouldn't be dictating who he can hire or fire.