In Colorado and thinking about smoking marijuana after work? Might want to reconsider that. Even though many Colorado residents qualify to use medical marijuana regularly, it can carry many consequences for consumers. In a landmark Colorado Supreme Court decision, Coats v. Dish Network, the court decided that employers can now lawfully terminate employees for using medical marijuana, even if they are off the clock.

This case originated in 2010 when Dish Network fired an employee, Brandon Coats, for not passing a random drug test. Testing positive for marijuana went against the company’s “zero-tolerance” drug policy. Coats is a quadriplegic who is licensed to use medical marijuana under Colorado state law to help ease the pain of his muscle spasms. He claims that he never used marijuana while working, nor was he ever high at work. Coats filed the lawsuit claiming that his rights were violated since he is legally allowed to use marijuana in the state of Colorado, so this should not affect his status of employment.

Colorado Supreme Court: Worker can be fired for using pot even though it's legal in state http://t.co/VNP5g4CEZY pic.twitter.com/DSeFkSGZJ4

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 15, 2015

In a unanimous decision, all six judges ruled in favor of Dish Network, stating that the company was in the right when it let go of Coats. This case sets a precedent for future workplace conflicts over the matter. Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado, as well as recreational marijuana, but it is still illegal in all forms under federal law. Federal law trumps state law and so despite some people being able to obtain licenses to use medical marijuana, they still have to obey their employers’ drug policies.

Colorado is one of the most liberal states in the United States when it comes to marijuana use, as it legalized the medical consumption of it in 2001, and the recreational use of it became legal in 2012.  Marijuana use in Colorado has become ubiquitous. Doctors prescribe medical marijuana to patients for a multitude of reasons, such as to help combat the nausea induced by chemotherapy, to treat seizure disorders, or to curb the poor appetite and weight loss associated with HIV. People can grow the plant in their basements and there are dispensaries throughout many of the major cities. People can even take yoga classes focused on marijuana or marijuana themed cooking classes. Reports state that the legalization of cannabis has caused crime rates to decrease, lowered unemployment rates, and has contributed to greater economic growth thanks to the enormous tax revenues that the sales have created.

This decision will clear up many issues in Colorado, although it could also cause tensions to rise among citizens throughout the state and the whole country. Seeing how this case will impact other states’ decisions regarding the workplace and the use of medical marijuana will be interesting, considering that 23 other states have legalized it for medical consumption so far. To avoid future legal problems, this decision will likely prompt other companies to devise new drug policies so it is clear what they expect of their employees.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Be Fired for Legal Marijuana Use? appeared first on Law Street.

You guys, I’m getting really fed up with the GOP.

This week, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to block the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill aimed at closing the gender wage gap.

It would have encouraged salary transparency among employees, protected workers who share salary information with one another, imposed more serious penalties for pay discrimination, and required employers to prove that any existing wage gaps are in place for reasons other than gender.

Basically, the Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what it sounds like — a bill that seeks fair paychecks for everyone, regardless of gender.

You’d think that’d be a pretty standard, reasonable goal: pay everyone fairly based on the work that they do, not on the genitals they have! Easy enough, right? Well, apparently not. Because this is the fourth time that Republicans have blocked it.

It’s a pretty counter-intuitive move, considering that just a few weeks ago, the Republican National Committee claimed that, “All Republicans support equal pay.” It appears that these Senate Republicans are voting against the official party line.

This #LaborDay, the White House & Democrats believe paying women less than men is an acceptable practice. pic.twitter.com/AhCYH5RGgR

— RNC (@GOP) September 1, 2014

Not to mention, earlier this month, Politico leaked that the GOP was sorely lacking in support from single women, and would be targeting the Beyoncé-voters’ bloc come election season. Senate Republicans didn’t seem to get that memo, since their actions this week are only further alienating the key voting demographic they need to win over.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a direct response to the realities of gender discrimination in the workplace — women earn an average of 77 cents to a man’s dollar. That statistic hasn’t changed in a decade. And while it’s true that it’s a fairly complex number, determined by a variety of factors, it’s still very real that the average female worker earns less than her male counterparts.

And Republicans are voting to keep it that way.

Women are paid less than men from the minute they enter the workforce right through to the moment they get promoted to the executive corner office. There are a ton of factors that go into the wage gap — industry, tenure, marital status, and education level, just to name a few — but women are getting paid less no matter which of these variables get thrown into the mix.

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act would send a clear message that the federal government cares about women in the workforce. This bill would not only take real steps toward closing the pay gap between men and women, it would also communicate that female workers are valued. The way they’re treated, and how much they’re paid, matters.

But Republicans are voting to hang on to current practices, like salary secrecy, that work to keep women’s paychecks smaller and their professional contributions undervalued. Why? According to the Senators, they worry that the bill would cause employers to stop hiring female employees, fearful of discrimination lawsuits. They’ve also argued that the wage gap is exaggerated and that women are already protected from discrimination enough.

So basically, the Republican Senators who blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on Monday night are sending a number of shitbag messages:

They’re dismissing the very real problem of pay discrimination, invalidating the experiences of women who are forced to support themselves on inadequate wages simply because they have vaginas.

They’re telling the world that women are not valuable workers, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for women to work just as hard as — if not harder than — their male counterparts, and get paid less.

They’re upholding a hostile, sexist culture in which, apparently, if employers are expected to treat their female workers in a non-discriminatory manner, they simply won’t hire female workers at all.

And finally, they’re sending a crystal clear message to women across the nation that the GOP does not take our priorities seriously. Instead, they’ll tell us our problems don’t exist, our concerns are invalid and unnecessary, and then vote in favor of policies that harm us.

The RNC’s Twitter account claims to be in support of equal pay for women, but actions speak louder than words.

You’re not fooling anyone, conserva-turds.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of  [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act AGAIN appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a chilly November afternoon in Indiana. Simple, God-fearing folks from Fort Wayne to Evansville have gathered with friends and family to celebrate the football game happening in South Bend, just as they do every year. The game would give the winner a good shot at college football’s national championship, and give one team’s fans bragging rights throughout the country for at least a year. But this year there would be no bragging rights for either Notre Dame or USC fans because there would be no game. Hours before kickoff, Notre Dame quarterback Josef Steinbeck (a transfer from Michigan) convinced his team to strike over the team’s early curfew and average salaries. Notre Dame University, Steinbeck’s employer, was powerless because Steinbeck was protected by a big, powerful, union.

This Thayer-esque sports tragedy is exactly the type of yarn being spun by opponents of unions in college football, like United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the Wall Street Journal. These stories have the potential to both entertain and galvanize the casual fan into opposing collective bargaining for college football players, but are they cautionary tales or tall tales?

Generally, unionized workers are permitted to strike only for economic concessions or due to an unfair labor practice (ULP) committed by their employer.  If a union strikes for an economic concession that’s plainly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (e.g. strike to compel an employer to raise minimum salaries higher than the CBA permits), a union risks committing a ULP itself, which could lead to fines, sanctions, or even decertification of the union. Unions also can’t strike unless they’ve given ten days notice to their employer, and they can’t strike at all if their CBA contains a no-strike provision. Rather than striking or hashing out issues via proletariat revolution, union complaints are usually either withdrawn or settled.

Still, work stoppages do happen (although apparently not in Canada). In sports though, it’s often not at the behest of the union.  A glimpse at work stoppages in professional sports shows that most are caused when owners refuse to permit the players to work (lockout) rather than the players refusing to play for the owners (strike). In baseball, strikes outnumber lockouts but mainly because the MLB’s perplexing antitrust-exemption prevents players from using alternate means to litigate their beef with management. In other sports, lockouts have typically arisen when CBAs between ownership and players have expired, and the two sides have not agreed upon a new contract. Since it takes two to tango, an unbiased observer would see owners just as responsible for sports stoppages as players are.

Even if the improbable did happen and unionized college players went on strike, would they deserve our resentment? The National College Players Association (NCPA) would be the presumptive union representing most college sports teams, and their demands are fairly modest requests regarding player safety, scholarship guarantees, and the ability to transfer. If a school reneged on one of these issues mid-season and still expected its football player to provide it with its multi-million dollar revenue stream, is the student the bad guy? Not in any story I’ve ever read.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Shaynedwyer via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post The Fable of the College Football Strike appeared first on Law Street.