IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Might be no protection.
http://www.lexology....969b-913a4f28a468

Federal court says termination of employee for using medical marijuana is not discriminatory

Jackson Lewis PC
Kathryn Barry
USA
August 28 2013
Jackson Lewis PC logo
A federal court in Denver has held that an employee who was fired after testing positive for marijuana was not protected by the state’s anti-discrimination laws, even though Colorado has legalized the use of medical marijuana. (Curry v. MillerCoors, Inc., 12-cv-02471 (JLK) (D. Colo. 2013)).

MillerCoors terminated Paul Curry after he tested positive for marijuana use during a routine drug test administered by the company. Curry, who suffers from hepatitis C and osteoarthritis, is licensed by the State of Colorado to use medical marijuana pursuant to Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment, colloquially known as “Amendment 20”.

Following his termination, Curry filed a complaint in United States District Court accusing the Chicago-based brewer of discriminating against him on the basis of his disability. According to Curry, he was terminated “because of the treatment [medical marijuana] that [he] was using to manage the symptoms of his disabling medical conditions.” Curry also claimed he was discriminated against for engaging in lawful activity and that MillerCoors’s drug testing policy invaded his right to privacy.

According to District Judge John Kane, however, MillerCoors was simply enforcing its long-established drug-free workplace policy. Regardless of Mr. Curry’s medical condition, the Court held, “[Colorado’s] anti-discrimination law does not extend so far as to shield a disabled employee from the implementation of his employer’s standard policies against employee misconduct.”

[...]


Until the feds change the laws, MJ is still very iffy.

Cheers,
Scott.
New WTELF?!?!
WHAT THE EVER LOVING FUCK?
[Colorado’s] anti-discrimination law does not extend so far as to shield a disabled employee from the implementation of his employer’s standard policies against employee misconduct.

Isn't that pretty much exactly the point of anti-discrimination laws?
--

Drew
     petty humiliation - (rcareaga) - (13)
         :-( - (Another Scott)
         Next time ... - (drook)
         I bet "bashful kidney" excuse wouldn't work either. - (a6l6e6x)
         Land of the free, home of the brave - (jake123) - (1)
             Land of the peed-upon, home of the craven - (rcareaga)
         'Ancient liberties'- Ah, those: did they miss nullifying one - (Ashton)
         couldnt you whipout a medical mj card? how would that work? -NT - (boxley) - (6)
             But, they're looking for other stuff too. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             Might be no protection. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 WTELF?!?! - (drook)
             Re: couldnt you whipout a medical mj card? - (rcareaga) - (2)
                 As to your closing question ... - (drook)
                 decided a long time ago - (boxley)

The kids should've been walking to school with EMP lunchboxes.
68 ms