Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
everybody missing the point, an condition of employement was zero policy. he sign a paper, he tested positive, he gone. it was a conditon of employment. it doesnt matter if he could do his job or not. it was a condition of employment
It wasn't so simple. To condense, there was a Colorado law which said that this condition of employment was null and void. However, there is a Federal law which says the Colorado law is, in this particular circumstance, null and void. It took the courts to sort all this out.
If I were he I would write all the ceos that the mj posters always put forth as users asking one of them for a job based upon his performance...if it was any good and if he was competent
In the absence of the right answer here, that is actually a pretty good suggestion! Thank you for that!
Seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me. Dish likely has a zero tolerance drug policy for a multitude of reasons; makes it easy to fire drug abusers, probably eliminates some liability if an employee does something that causes harm/damage while on duty and is found to be under the influence, by not using a list of good illegal drugs and bad illegal drugs, it prevents further litigation from people who have been fired under the policy, so on and so forth. Then you've got the law itself; federal law trumps state law. If it's illegal federally, states can't make it not illegal; well they can put it in writing, but no appeals court has ruled that state marijuana laws have made marijuana not illegal at the state level, nor has the supreme court, so it's still illegal even if local municipalities have instructed their police forces to pick and choose which federal laws they choose to enforce.
Some computer kicks this guy's number out, Dish drug tests him, he fails, he gets fired. If he didn't get fired because he was given special treatment, then anyone else who had been fired under the policy would have grounds to sue for wrongful termination and/or discrimination.
My guess is Dish has calculated that the cost of having a zero tolerance drug policy is less than the cost of letting employees binge on recreational drugs in their off time, whether that cost be from liability, litigation, insurance, harm to reputation, loss of business, so on and so forth.
This ridiculous. This man has had a medical marijuana license for several years, before it was legal for recreational use. It is very easy to make a policy that exempts only based on medical need, and require a medical i.d. card.
What people are forgetting, is that even with a zero drug tolerance policy, they make exceptions for prescription drugs people take. If this guy took Valium to calm his spasms instead of pot, and had a Dr. verify it, they would exempt that.
The ONLY reason they were allowed to fire him, per the court, is because the Feds still have it classed as schedule one and illegal. I myself am not going to vote for any candidate for President next time who is against decriminalizing it federally. It's by far IMO the stupidest most indefensible Federal law of all stupid laws.
I agree with the supreme court that he was correctly fired. The employee knew the company rules. Companies have employment standards and practices and if they are broken by employees, employers have the option to fire people.
I haven't read the thread, but I'm sure someone must have brought up many professions where off duty drug use would and could impact performance, such as airline pilots, cabbies, teachers, etc.
Just because it is legal to do outside of work doesn't mean the behavior is acceptable for the employer, legal or not. The numerous firings recently of employees due to facebook and twitter posts is a perfect example of legal speech yet behavior deemed unacceptable to employers.
Then thanks so much for your well-informed comments.
Short synopsis, guy is 30 year old quadriplegic telephone operator, paralyzed since auto accident in his teens, has no use of arms or legs, uses a sip n puff to operate a power wheelchair with his mouth. He had frequent violent, painful muscle spasms throughout the day and no medicines the doctors tried helped, until they discovered that mj made them slow significantly and he has had a medical mj card since 2009.
Now his company got an "out" to fire a most likely extremely expensive employee they probably didn't really want to hire in the first place, and couldn't get rid of because he actually did a good job...so the computer selects him for a "random" drug test. Now the tax payers get to pay his living expenses and many-many-many thousands a year medical bills, because the big rich company didn't want to and they won. As usual.
And the people who have to pick up the tab cheer the decision.
How about the fact, the judgement, etc. of the employee may not always be up to the standard they expected of employees, due to the MJ.
If a worker is intoxicated enough to effect their judgement, job performance, etc., they can be fired for it, even though alcohol is legal in all states.
Why should it be any different, for MJ users, than it is for alcohol users?
How about the fact, the judgement, etc. of the employee may not always be up to the standard they expected of employees, due to the MJ.
If a worker is intoxicated enough to effect their judgement, job performance, etc., they can be fired for it, even though alcohol is legal in all states.
Why should it be any different, for MJ users, than it is for alcohol users?
I suspect the employer wanted this man gone a long time ago, but because he was a "federally protected species" termination was impossible...until this.
What if it's your surgeon who takes MMJ? Would anyone argue that it's OK for him to be high on the day he's doing your surgery? Or how about your child's school bus driver? Should we not have any regulations regarding the lingering effects of MMJ on the job site?
There is no test for active THC, what they test for is the metabolites of THC, the metabolites are what you body breaks down THC into. THC metabolites are stored in fat cells in the body, unlike alcohol, cocaine, meth, opiates etc which are broken down and eliminated from the body in 2-3 days, THC metabolites are slowly released over a 30 day period. Once metabolized, THC is no longer getting a person high, its just that the metabolites are stored in fat. So until testing improves, employers are weeding out (yeah its a pun) the pot smokers, while giving the alcoholics, cocaine/meth/opiate junkies a free pass.
Correct. It's ridiculous to think that someone who may have smoked several days ago, and nothing since, is still under the influence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
