by Phillip Smith
Drug War Chronicle
April 26, 2013
Although the case was brought by a medical marijuana user, the ruling will have any even broader impact given that the state has now legalized marijuana for all adults.
Coats challenged his firing, citing Colorado’s Lawful Activities statute, which prohibits employers from firing workers for “engaging in any legal activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.” But both the trial court and now the appeals court rejected his challenge, holding that because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Lawful Activities statute does not apply.
“For an activity to be lawful in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law,” the appeals court said.
Judge John Webb dissented, saying he could not find a case addressing whether Colorado judges must consider federal law in determining the meaning of the Colorado statute.
Coats’ attorney, Michael Evans, said in a statement that the ruling will have a broad impact in the state.
“This case not only impacts Mr. Coats, but also some 127,816 medical marijuana patient-employees in Colorado who could be summarily terminated even if they are in legal compliance with Colorado state law,” Evans said.
And with adult marijuana legalization now in place in the state, it is not just medical marijuana users who stand to be affected.
The ruling is expected to be appealed.
Similar rulings allowing employers to fire medical marijuana users have been upheld by courts in other states, including California, Michigan, and Montana.
This content was brought to you by Intellihub.com
We make our content available for everyone to distribute, repost and share as the information contained is vital. However, with that being said, we encourage you to donate as we are not funded by large corporate interests.
Note: Intellihub expressively grants permission to repost any article on this site bearing the name “Intellihub” on the byline. Please include writer name and proper link-backs. Images and articles not bearing Intellihub on the byline are subject to copyright by other parties.