Pubdate: Wed, 17 Jun 2015
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2015 The Gazette
Contact: http://www.gazette.com/sections/opinion/submitletter/
Website: http://www.gazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/165

WANT TO SMOKE POT? THE BOSS CAN FIRE YOU

Colorado pot users have no fear of federal or local law enforcement. 
As of this week, they might start fearing the boss.

The federal government lacks resources to enforce its laws against 
recreational or medical marijuana. It also lacks authority to require 
local or state police to enforce federal laws. But an employer can 
say no to drug-using employees, prohibiting them from using marijuana 
for any reason at any time.

So says a ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court Monday, which sided 
unanimously with the employer in Coats v. Dish Network.

Brandon Coats, a paraplegic, worked as a telephone customer service 
representative for Dish - a company with zero tolerance for illicit 
drug use. He tested positive in 2010 for THC, the psychoactive 
ingredient in marijuana, during a random test. Coats told Dish he was 
a registered medical marijuana patient and planned to continue using 
the drug. On June 7, 2010, Dish fired him for using marijuana under 
the company's strict anti-drug policy. Coats filed a wrongful 
termination claim under Colorado's Lawful Activities statute. The law 
creates some restrictions against employers discharging employees for 
"lawful activities" off premises on personal time, but contains 
reasonable exceptions.

No one should be surprised by the court's decision in Coats v. Dish, 
as federal law strictly prohibits marijuana consumption. The "Lawful 
Activities" statute does not protect unlawful conduct. Simple as 
that. As stated in the unanimous decision: "an activity such as 
medical marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a 
'lawful' activity under (our) Lawful Activities Statute."

Besides, the state constitutional amendment that legalized marijuana 
expressly protects existing drug-use policies of employers.

While some protections of personal employee conduct are needed, most 
would be ridiculous and counterproductive. Federal law protects the 
right of a worker to participate in a Klan rally on the weekend. 
Because of the First Amendment, this employee cannot be prosecuted 
for expressing views most Americans despise. That doesn't mean the 
Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, the ACLU or a school has an 
obligation to continue employing the racist. A corporate lawyer can 
legally dance on the table at a bar, but it might cost him his job if 
the a client sees it and complains to the firm.

As individuals, we have the right to conduct ourselves as we choose 
within boundaries of law. We do not have a right to our jobs without 
the adjoining responsibility to comport ourselves in manners that 
will not undermine the critical interests of our employers. The 
company has a responsibility to other workers, customers and the 
community that cannot come under constant threat from employees 
exercising the fullest extent of their rights on personal time. Be a 
stripper, a porn star or a drug user. Don't also insist on teaching 
Sunday school.

The Supreme Court's ruling is common-sense enforcement of an 
employer's need to discriminate against employee conduct that doesn't 
respect a company's mission and responsibilities to others. 
Coloradans who want to use marijuana, or those who think they must, 
are mostly free to do so. But as of Monday, it just might cost them their jobs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom