Quadriplegic fired for using medical marijuana ruled against

[EVT1]

Way to go morons- go ahead and collect SS benefits dude- let the government pay for your rent and your weed

Just another area an employer has no business sticking their nose in. 

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17917139-colorado-court-rules-smoking-pot-off-the-job-can-still-get-you-fired?lite

     The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug

     The court acknowledged that Dish Network never accused Coats of being impaired while on the job. Lawyers for the former employee said he received satisfactory performance reviews all three years he worked at the company

[deziloooooo]

"Way to go morons- go ahead and collect SS benefits dude- let the government pay for your rent and your weed"

I guess I am missing your intent on the above post....not sure where SS benefits are involved here...one is either eligible or not to SS benefits... 

Here it seems the problem is one of the State law making it legal but the Federal still has smoking..for any reason ..medical or not , it's illegal from their view point..which is kind of stupid but then again, when have we seen much  done by legislatures on the federal level ever make any sense or make things clearer or easier for the citizens these elected bozos are supposed to look out for and serve...

I  believe the citizens approval ratings for the  career of used car sales people are higher then that of their feelings of elected political types...for a good reason too ....

[djAdvocate]

this is precisely the kind of shit i would like to see stopped.

[Sum Dum Gai]

not sure where SS benefits are involved here...one is either eligible or not to SS benefits...

The article says he has a medical marijuana prescription, not that he was smoking recreationally.  I'm pretty sure he would be entitled to benefits if he's unable to work for a medical reason, including side effects from a medically necessary prescription.  Or, in his case, employers denying him work due to a medically necessary prescription.

[EVT1]

Apr 25, 2013 21:56:49 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

"Way to go morons- go ahead and collect SS benefits dude- let the government pay for your rent and your weed"

I guess I am missing your intent on the above post....not sure where SS benefits are involved here...one is either eligible or not to SS benefits... 

Here it seems the problem is one of the State law making it legal but the Federal still has smoking..for any reason ..medical or not , it's illegal from their view point..which is kind of stupid but then again, when have we seen much  done by legislatures on the federal level ever make any sense or make things clearer or easier for the citizens these elected bozos are supposed to look out for and serve...

I  believe the citizens approval ratings for the  career of used car sales people are higher then that of their feelings of elected political types...for a good reason too ....

I know it wasn't clear- but here we have a person that qualifies for disability due to his condition that decided to work instead and pay taxes, and he gets sacked for his trouble because spineless politicians in DC decided to keep pot as a schedule one drug despite it plainly does not belong there. 

Also spineless are the justices that went out of their way to ignore the intent of a state law that should have stopped this from happening- hopefully they win the appeal(s).

Shame on Dish Network as well. Wal Mart pulled this same shit a while back with a guy with a brain tumor.  This is one time state laws are going to have to protect these people since the federal government isn't going to do shit.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 25, 2013 20:39:40 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Way to go morons- go ahead and collect SS benefits dude- let the government pay for your rent and your weed

Just another area an employer has no business sticking their nose in. 

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17917139-colorado-court-rules-smoking-pot-off-the-job-can-still-get-you-fired?lite

     The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug

     The court acknowledged that Dish Network never accused Coats of being impaired while on the job. Lawyers for the former employee said he received satisfactory performance reviews all three years he worked at the company

On this one, we agree.  The war on drugs is a huge expense to our country.  Not only are we not taxing it, and all that money is not in our GDP, but we are unnecessarily marginalizing people- not just this guy forced onto government aid, but what about the people that can't get a job because we've labeled them "felons" for possessing plants?  This madness has to stop.

[jkapp]

So you're saying a business shouldn't have the ablility to have certain requirements of their workers?  All businesses have to take marijuana users?  I have sympathy for anyone in pain, but if a business has a zero tolerance policy then it should be able to enforce it to all, without exception.  Or is everyone supposed to abide by your standards?

If Dish Network has a strict policy, then perhaps this individual can apply to Charter cable or some other business that is more lenient in regards to medical usage.

[fairlycrazy23]

Apr 25, 2013 22:02:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is precisely the kind of shit i would like to see stopped.

I agree if dish only decided to fire the person because they where breaking the Federal Law, but if Dish simply doesn't want someone who uses this drug to work for them then they should have that right regardless of whether it is on the Federal Control list or not.

[Deleted]

but if Dish simply doesn't want someone who uses this drug to work for them then they should have that right regardless of whether it is on the Federal Control list or not.

Not necessarily.  Because it could amount to discrimination against people with disabilities.  It has to be related to illegal behavior or job performance, or they could be in hot water.

[fairlycrazy23]

Apr 26, 2013 9:16:01 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

but if Dish simply doesn't want someone who uses this drug to work for them then they should have that right regardless of whether it is on the Federal Control list or not.

Not necessarily.  Because it could amount to discrimination against people with disabilities.  It has to be related to illegal behavior or job performance, or they could be in hot water.

I'm just describing what I think is right, not what is legal. And speaking of the ADA, I don't think it has actually helped increase the number of disabled employed; of course it has greatly helped lawyers 

[formerroomate99]

My old boss has a concield carry permit.  Our company has a strict policy against bringing firearms in the workplace.  So if he decided to bring his gun to work and got sacked for it, would you be saying he deserved to live off the government teat for the rest of his life because his perfectly legal actions got him fired?  Would you be wailing and moaning about his fate? 

The federal government has nothing to do with Dish network's decision to drug test their employees.  A private citizen who smokes pot chose to take a job at a company where smoking pot is a firing offense, chose to keep smoking pot, and got himself fired.  This isn't anything other than garden variety stupid, both on the part of the employee and the company. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 9:09:57 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Apr 25, 2013 22:02:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is precisely the kind of shit i would like to see stopped.

I agree if dish only decided to fire the person because they where breaking the Federal Law, but if Dish simply doesn't want someone who uses this drug to work for them then they should have that right regardless of whether it is on the Federal Control list or not.

well, they DO have that right.  but i am not sure anyone who is not in a public safety area SHOULD.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 9:16:01 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

but if Dish simply doesn't want someone who uses this drug to work for them then they should have that right regardless of whether it is on the Federal Control list or not.

Not necessarily.  Because it could amount to discrimination against people with disabilities.  It has to be related to illegal behavior or job performance, or they could be in hot water.

we are on precisely the same page, ib.  that should be the limit of what they can do, imo.

you familiar with what Lincoln said when he was told that US Grant drank too much on the job?

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

My old boss has a concield carry permit.  Our company has a strict policy against bringing firearms in the workplace.  So if he decided to bring his gun to work and got sacked for it, would you be saying he deserved to live off the government teat for the rest of his life because his perfectly legal actions got him fired?  Would you be wailing and moaning about his fate? 

The federal government has nothing to do with Dish network's decision to drug test their employees.  A private citizen who smokes pot chose to take a job at a company where smoking pot is a firing offense, chose to keep smoking pot, and got himself fired.  This isn't anything other than garden variety stupid, both on the part of the employee and the company. 

i understand this point.  mine is that smoking pot (like drinking, in one's spare time) should not be a firing offense.

[workpublic]

smoking cigarettes is firing offense
your spouse smoking is a firing offense
expressing your opinion is a firing offense
soon being fat will be too
smoking cigarettes is a no hire offense
being unemployed is no hire offense
being fat, old, ugly are unofficial no hire offenses.

where have you folks been lately.

companies can do what the want since they own the govt.

IF weed ever becomes legal for any use, companies will still not hire users.

it's a liability issue. users will always have thc in their blood(whether it effected their performance/caused the accident or not). if someone runs into you and you have THC in your blood, the company is liable, even though the accident wasn't your fault.
  

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 12:27:53 GMT -5 workpublic said:

smoking cigarettes is firing offense
expressing your opinion is a firing offense
soon being fat will be too
smoking cigarettes is a no hire offense
being unemployed is no hire offense
being fat, old, ugly are unofficial no hire offenses.

where have you folks been lately.

companies can do what the want since they own the govt.

IF weed ever becomes legal for any use, companies will still not hire users.

it's a liability issue. users will always have thc in their blood(whether it effected their performance/caused the accident or not). if someone runs into you and you have THC in your blood, the company is liable, even though the accident wasn't your fault.
  

ditto if you are drunk on the job, or had too much cough syrup.  but if you have a desk job, how is you being high going to impact anyone?  shouldn't an employer just judge you on your abilities, at that point?

[EVT1]

Apr 26, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

My old boss has a concield carry permit.  Our company has a strict policy against bringing firearms in the workplace.  So if he decided to bring his gun to work and got sacked for it, would you be saying he deserved to live off the government teat for the rest of his life because his perfectly legal actions got him fired?  Would you be wailing and moaning about his fate? 

The federal government has nothing to do with Dish network's decision to drug test their employees.  A private citizen who smokes pot chose to take a job at a company where smoking pot is a firing offense, chose to keep smoking pot, and got himself fired.  This isn't anything other than garden variety stupid, both on the part of the employee and the company. 

Wow- you missed it.  The key parts- he had a prescription from his doctor, legal in his state.  That should end it.

And as far as living off of the teat- he is disabled- he didn't have to get a job at all under SSA guidelines.  Lucky for him he has enough quarters to qualify for DI benefits. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 12:31:33 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 26, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

My old boss has a concield carry permit.  Our company has a strict policy against bringing firearms in the workplace.  So if he decided to bring his gun to work and got sacked for it, would you be saying he deserved to live off the government teat for the rest of his life because his perfectly legal actions got him fired?  Would you be wailing and moaning about his fate? 

The federal government has nothing to do with Dish network's decision to drug test their employees.  A private citizen who smokes pot chose to take a job at a company where smoking pot is a firing offense, chose to keep smoking pot, and got himself fired.  This isn't anything other than garden variety stupid, both on the part of the employee and the company. 

Wow- you missed it.  The key parts- he had a prescription from his doctor, legal in his state.  That should end it.

And as far as living off of the teat- he is disabled- he didn't have to get a job at all under SSA guidelines.  Lucky for him he has enough quarters to qualify for DI benefits. 

evt: QUESTION: if a person is taking codeine for leg pain, under prescription, can a person be legally fired for using it at work?

[EVT1]

Apr 26, 2013 8:17:04 GMT -5 jkapp said:

So you're saying a business shouldn't have the ablility to have certain requirements of their workers?  All businesses have to take marijuana users?  I have sympathy for anyone in pain, but if a business has a zero tolerance policy then it should be able to enforce it to all, without exception.  Or is everyone supposed to abide by your standards?

I am saying a business cannot decide what medications an employee is allowed to take- you see a large problem there?  Next thing you know they fire over any medications associated with expensive medical conditions.

For general users:

A better plan would limit all drug testing in the workplace to under the influence level and quit canning people for what happens out of the office.  Pretty shitty when they will fire some weekend toker but the rest of the office is free to pop pills all day long.

To me drug testing is an invasion of privacy right away- so its scope should be very limited.  If you think someone is on something- fine test them, test them for impairment, I am ok with that to a point.  What people ingest on their time is their business. 

[Tennesseer]

Apr 26, 2013 12:38:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:31:33 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Wow- you missed it.  The key parts- he had a prescription from his doctor, legal in his state.  That should end it.

And as far as living off of the teat- he is disabled- he didn't have to get a job at all under SSA guidelines.  Lucky for him he has enough quarters to qualify for DI benefits. 

evt: QUESTION: if a person is taking codeine for leg pain, under prescription, can a person be legally fired for using it at work?

DJ-no. As long as they can provide proof of prescription. Say the employee was sent for random drug screen and the codeine showed up. If the employee didn't let the testing site know he had a prescription for it, the employee would be asked what medications he was on and would he provide prof of prescription. Once proven the prescription is legit, the employee passes the drug screen.

[workpublic]

you can be fired for anything these days. prescription or not.

[workpublic]

but if you have a desk job, how is you being high going to impact anyone?  shouldn't an employer just judge you on your abilities, at that point?

of course.

but now if an employee has a desk job, smoked weed a month ago and gets a surprise wiz quiz, they're out. or if the employer has a heart or a policy they might get to go to treatment, admit they are a drug addict and powerless to do anything, get into AA or NA and let God handle it.



got any papers?

[thyme4change]

As a phone operator for a company like Dish, wouldn't you have to do some typing or something?  Aren't quadriplegics paralyzed in all 4 limbs?  Or can you put a quadriplegic and have some motion in your hands?  Or can you be a phone operator and not "pull-up" someone's record or type in any notes?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Some quadriplegics can use their arms and hands, but with some restrictions.  It's a sliding scale type deal.  Some are completely paralyzed, some just have limited mobility in the upper limbs.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 13:38:00 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Some quadriplegics can use their arms and hands, but with some restrictions.  It's a sliding scale type deal.  Some are completely paralyzed, some just have limited mobility in the upper limbs.

have you seen this one dark?

[Sum Dum Gai]

LOL!  That's awesome.

[formerroomate99]

Apr 26, 2013 12:07:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 26, 2013 10:33:08 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

My old boss has a concield carry permit.  Our company has a strict policy against bringing firearms in the workplace.  So if he decided to bring his gun to work and got sacked for it, would you be saying he deserved to live off the government teat for the rest of his life because his perfectly legal actions got him fired?  Would you be wailing and moaning about his fate? 

The federal government has nothing to do with Dish network's decision to drug test their employees.  A private citizen who smokes pot chose to take a job at a company where smoking pot is a firing offense, chose to keep smoking pot, and got himself fired.  This isn't anything other than garden variety stupid, both on the part of the employee and the company. 

i understand this point.  mine is that smoking pot (like drinking, in one's spare time) should not be a firing offense.

Personally, I agree with you, which is why I said it was also stupid on the part of Dish Network.  They lost what appears to be a good employee over something that doesn't matter, and along with incurring the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, they'll likely have some litigation down the pike. 

But again, we live in a world where businesses are allowed to make and enforce stupid rules, and unless those rules cross certain lines, there isn't much you can do about it.  I'm sure if we talked to your employees, they'd be able to come up with at least a dozen rules they think are stupid or unfair. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 13:46:08 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

LOL!  That's awesome.

you can hear the relief in his voice when he tells him that he is going to look elsewhere.

i think the part where he delivers the equal opportunity employer line is the best moment.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 26, 2013 13:47:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:07:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i understand this point.  mine is that smoking pot (like drinking, in one's spare time) should not be a firing offense.

Personally, I agree with you, which is why I said it was also stupid on the part of Dish Network.  They lost what appears to be a good employee over something that doesn't matter, and along with incurring the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, they'll likely have some litigation down the pike. 

But again, we live in a world where businesses are allowed to make and enforce stupid rules, and unless those rules cross certain lines, there isn't much you can do about it.  I'm sure if we talked to your employees, they'd be able to come up with at least a dozen rules they think are stupid or unfair. 

yeah, i made this point earlier.  they are within their rights, imo.  i just don't think they SHOULD be. 

if i have a yellow T-Shirt rule here, and someone shows up wearing red, i might give them a warning.
if they show up wearing blue the next day, i might can them.
and that is my right, as an employer, even if it is stone cold stupid.

[cme1201]

Apr 26, 2013 13:47:43 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Apr 26, 2013 12:07:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i understand this point.  mine is that smoking pot (like drinking, in one's spare time) should not be a firing offense.

Personally, I agree with you, which is why I said it was also stupid on the part of Dish Network.  They lost what appears to be a good employee over something that doesn't matter, and along with incurring the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, they'll likely have some litigation down the pike. 

But again, we live in a world where businesses are allowed to make and enforce stupid rules, and unless those rules cross certain lines, there isn't much you can do about it.  I'm sure if we talked to your employees, they'd be able to come up with at least a dozen rules they think are stupid or unfair. 

No litigation will happen, the company is covered as long as it has a Federal Drug Free Workplace initiative in place.

As long as the federal government is covering insurance costs of businesses who have the FDFWI the feds will always hold the cards.

You try and blame the businesses for making the rules (which is completely wrong here).  when it should be the feds that you direct your ire towards.