The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

By Nigel Duara, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that businesses can fire employees who use marijuana during their time off, including those with a legal prescriptions for medical pot.

In a case that has been closely watched by employers in some states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal or recreational use, the Colorado court found that Dish Network lawfully fired a quadriplegic employee and medical marijuana user who failed a drug test. Customer service representative Brandon Coats, 35, used marijuana away from work to deal with painful muscle spasms.

The court ruled that the federal prohibition on marijuana makes the drug unlawful despite Colorado’s approval of its use for medicinal purposes. The ruling, while not binding on other states, adds to a series of court losses by medical marijuana patients who lost their jobs after using pot.

Coats sued after he was fired on June 7, 2010, alleging wrongful termination. He argued that marijuana was made “lawful” for the purposes of employment law when Colorado voters legalized it for medicinal use in 2000. Voters legalized it for recreational use in 2012.

A trial court dismissed Coats’ lawsuit, saying the state’s legalization of medical marijuana provides a defense only against criminal prosecution, and does not make the use of marijuana a “lawful activity” that is protected against employment discrimination.

When the case went to the Colorado Court of Appeals, justices differed with the trial court’s reasoning, but still found that Coats was rightfully terminated because marijuana is prohibited by federal law.

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that reasoning, voting 6-0 with one abstention.

“Nothing in the language of the (employment) statute limits the term ‘lawful’ to state law,” wrote Justice Allison H. Eid. “Instead, the term is used in its general, unrestricted sense, indicating that a ‘lawful’ activity is that which complies with applicable law, including state and federal law.”

Coats said in a statement that the decision is a setback for him personally, but advances the cause of medical marijuana patients in the workplace.

“If we’re making marijuana legal for medical purposes, we need to address issues that come along with it such as employment,” Coats said. “Hopefully views on medical marijuana _ like the ones in my specific case _ will change soon.”

Dish Network did not reply to phone inquiries.

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, whose office filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Dish Network, praised the decision because it gives employers complete control over drug use in the workplace.

“Not every business will opt for zero-tolerance,” Coffman said Monday, “but it is important that the latitude now exists to craft a policy that fits the individual workplace.”

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act is meant to protect employees from discrimination based on a medical condition. But the ADA doesn’t protect employees from losing their jobs after testing positive for marijuana because the drug is still listed next to heroin, LSD and Ecstasy on the federal government’s list of Schedule I drugs, its most dangerous category.

Despite the state’s relaxed view on pot, the Colorado Constitution states that employers don’t have to amend their policies to accommodate employees’ marijuana use.

In some other states, employment protection is built into marijuana laws. Such employment protection statutes often dissuade employers from taking action against medical marijuana patients, keeping the matter out of court, said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocate of legalization.

Patients in Rhode Island, for example, , may not be denied school enrollment, housing or employment because they are medical marijuana users.

“The issue has only been litigated in some medical marijuana states, so it’s not clear which ones might ultimately be found to protect patients from employment discrimination,” O’Keefe said.

Arizona, Delaware and Minnesota provide the strongest protection to medical marijuana patients, she said, adding that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision could guide other states.

“For those states with similar language, it could have an impact,” she said.

Even in states where employment protections exist, there is no guarantee that employees fired for marijuana use will prevail in court.

Joseph Casias of Battle Creek, Mich., was using marijuana for the pain associated with an inoperable brain tumor. When he twisted his knee at his job at Wal-Mart, he was ordered to take a drug test. Casias promptly told his manager about his marijuana use, but was fired days later.

He sued, and lost, in court for the same reason Coats lost his job _ the federal ban on marijuana trumped state law.

“The case and many others like it highlight the gray areas and legal fixes needed in Colorado and other states that have reformed their marijuana laws,” the pro-marijuana Drug Policy Alliance said in a statement Monday. “Any rights bestowed upon civilians by state law fall far short of fully protecting medical marijuana patients and legal adult users of marijuana.”

In addition to Colorado, recreational marijuana use is legal in Washington state and Alaska and will be legal in Oregon on July 15.

(c)2015 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Rep. Bennie Thompson

Photo by Customs and Border Protection (Public domain)

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Friday afternoon announced the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack has issued subpoenas to 14 Republicans from seven states who submitted the forged and "bogus" Electoral College certificates falsely claiming Donald Trump and not Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election in their states.

The Chairman appeared to suggest the existence of a conspiracy as well, noting the "the planning and coordination of efforts," saying "these so-called alternate electors met," and may know "who was behind that scheme."

Keep reading... Show less

Chris Cuomo

News Literacy Week 2022, an annual awareness event started by the News Literacy Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to making everyone “smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy” has closed out. From January 24 to 28, classes, webinars, and Twitter chats taught students and adults how to root out misinformation when consuming news media.
There’s no downplaying the importance of understanding what is accurate in the media. These days, news literacy is a survival tactic. One study estimated that at least 800 people died because they embraced a COVID falsehood — and that inquiry was conducted in the earliest months of the pandemic. About 67 percent of the unvaccinated believe at least one COVID-19 myth, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
It’s not that accurate information isn’t available; people are rejecting reports of vaccine efficacy and safety because they distrust the news media. A third of Americans polled by Gallup said they have no trust at all in mass media; another 27 percent don’t have much at all.
Getting people to believe information presented to them depends more on trust than it does on the actual data being shared. That is, improving trust isn’t an issue of improving reporting. It’s an issue of improving relationships with one’s audience.
And that’s the real news problem right now; some celebrity anchors at cable news outlets are doing little to strengthen their relationships with their audiences and a lot to strengthen their relationships with government officials.
The most obvious example is how CNN terminated Prime Time anchor Chris Cuomo last month for his failure to disclose the entirety of his role in advising his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on the sexual harassment accusation that unfolded in Albany, a scandal that eventually led to Andrew Cuomo’s resignation.
But there are others. Just this month, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol revealed that another anchor on another cable news network, Laura Ingraham of Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle, texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows last January, advising Meadows how Trump should react to reports of possible armed protests at state capitols around the country. This revelation followed the story that Sean Hannity, host of the eponymous news hour at Fox News, also texted Meadows with advice last year.
And while he didn't advise a government official, CNN anchor Don Lemon revealed information not available to the public when he texted embattled Empire actor Jussie Smollett to tip him off about the Chicago Police Department’s wavering faith in his story about an assault. That’s from Smollett’s own sworn testimony.
When English philosopher Edmund Burke joked about the press being the Fourth Estate — in addition to the First, Second and Third (the clergy, nobility and commoners, respectively) — his point was that, despite their influence on each other, these “estates” — bastions of power — are supposed to be separate.
The Fourth Estate will always be an essential counterweight to government. But, since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, we’ve been so focused on stopping an executive branch from pressing the press to support an administration's agenda — either by belittling journalists or threatening to arrest them for doing their jobs — that we’ve ignored the ways that it affects and influences other Estates, and not necessarily through its reporting.
That is, we have news personalities-cum-reporters who are influencing government policy — and not telling us about it until it’s too late.
The United States has fostered an incredible closeness between the Second Estate — which in 2021 and 2022 would be political leaders — and the Fourth Estate. About a year ago, an Axios reporter had to be reassigned because she was dating one of President Biden’s press secretaries. Last year, James Bennet, the former editorial page editor of the New York Times and brother of Colorado Senator and 2020 Presidential candidate Michael Bennet, had to recuse himself publicly from the Gray Lady’s endorsement process. In 2013, the Washington Post reported at least eight marriages between Obama officials and established journalists.
To be clear, there aren’t any accusations that anyone just mentioned engaged in anything other than ethical behavior. But I, for one, don’t believe that James and Michael Bennet didn’t discuss Michael’s campaign. I don’t think the Axios reporter and her West Wing-employed boyfriend — or any journalists and their federally employed spouses, for that matter — didn’t share facts that the public will never know. Such is the nature of family and intimacy.
And as long as those conversations don’t affect the coverage of any news events, there’s nothing specifically, technically wrong with them. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t damaging.
As these stories show, when we don’t know about these advisor roles, at least not until someone other than the journalist in question exposes them, it causes a further erosion of trust in news media.
What’s foolish about the Cuomo, Ingraham, Hannity, and Lemon improprieties is that they don't necessarily need to be the problem they’ve become. Cuomo’s show contained opinion content like 46 percent of CNN’s programming. An active debate rages on as to whether Fox News is all opinion and whether or not it can rightly even be called opinion journalism since its shows are so studded with inaccuracies and lies.
What that means is that Cuomo, Ingraham, Hannity, and Lemon are allowed to take a stand as opinion journalists; Cuomo and Lemon never really worked under a mandate of objectivity and Ingraham and Hannity likely wouldn’t honor it if they did. Indeed, a certain subjectivity — and explaining how it developed for the journalist — is part of an opinion journalist’s craft. To me, little of these consulting roles would be problematic if any of these anchors had just disclosed them and the ways they advised the people they cover.
But they didn’t. Instead, the advice they dispensed to government employees and celebrities was disclosed by a third party and news of it contributes to the public’s distrust in the media. While personal PR advisory connections between journalists and politicians haven’t been pinpointed as a source of distrust, they may have an effect. Almost two-thirds of respondents in a Pew Research poll said they attributed what they deemed unfair coverage to a political agenda on the part of the news organization. No one has rigorously examined the ways in which individual journalists can swing institutional opinion so it may be part of the reason why consumers are suspicious of news.
Cleaning up ex post facto is both a violation of journalistic ethics and ineffective. Apologies and corrections after the fact don't always improve media trust. In other credibility contests, like courtroom battles, statements against one’s interests enhance a person’s believability. But that’s not necessarily true of news; a 2015 study found that corrections don’t automatically enhance a news outlet’s credibility.
It’s a new adage for the 21st century: It’s not the consulting; it’s the cover-up. Journalists need to disclose their connections to government officials — up front — to help maintain trust in news media. Lives depend on it.

Chandra Bozelko did time in a maximum-security facility in Connecticut. While inside she became the first incarcerated person with a regular byline in a publication outside of the facility. Her “Prison Diaries" column ran in The New Haven Independent, and she later established a blog under the same name that earned several professional awards. Her columns now appear regularly in The National Memo.


x
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}