Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic, was fired from his job at Dish Network after failing a random drug test in 2010.  Coats was a customer service representative for Dish and consumed pot off-duty (with a medical marijuana card) to control his muscle spasms.  

The Colorado Supreme Court recently ruled in a 6-0 decision that an employers’ zero-tolerance drug policy is superior to Colorado’s medical marijuana laws. Because the use of medical marijuana is not lawful under federal law (only state), employees who engage in medical marijuana usage are not protected. Employers have the freedom to set their own drug policies in the state of Colorado. 

Up until now, this has been a particularly gray area of the law in states that allow medical marijuana usage. Colorado is the first to shine some light on the subject. 

After the ruling, Dish Network released this statement: “We are pleased with the outcome of the court’s decision today. As a national employer, Dish remains committed to a drug-free workplace and compliance with federal law.” Not everyone, including Coats (who is currently unemployed) is happy with the outcome of the five year battle. 

According to the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is still considered a Schedule 1 Substance meaning that marijuana has “no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 

Do you think that the Colorado Supreme Court made the right decision? Do you think this could have been a disability discrimination claim if no drug test was failed?


Discriminated against by your employer? Call Shirazi Law Firm for a free consultation: 310-400-5891

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.