1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Dish Discriminates Against Disabled Employee over use of medical marijuana

Discussion in 'The OT' started by SayWhat?, Apr 30, 2013.

  1. Apr 30, 2013 #1 of 189
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/30/57179.htm

    Despite any court ruling, this never should have happened. I'm really starting to get fed up with Dish. I used to be a big supporter, but they are turning their backs on customers and employees alike.
     
  2. Apr 30, 2013 #2 of 189
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    It isn't news that your protections under the law do not guarantee you protections to be employed. In other words, you may have the right to free speech - which means you are free to say what you want about what you want - but you do not have the right to keep your job if your employer deems your speech harmful to their business. So while you can say, as an employee of Dish, that satellite television just plain sucks, and you won't go to jail for saying it, you shouldn't expect that you can keep your job at Dish if the powers that be get word of it. Because exercising your freedoms does not mean that your employer is not free to exercise theirs.

    It is common practice now for employers to run credit checks as part of the hiring process. It helps to eliminate possible embezzelment risks. Likewise, using certain drugs may make you more at risk to do damaging things to your employer as part of your daily job activities. The fact that the drug in question is legal now does not change Dish's opinion that using marijuana impairs an employee's ability to carry out their job to Dish's satisfaction.

    Now if this had been filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act, maybe the result would have been different, but then the employee would have to have demonstrated that he required that specific drug and that Dish could not make reasonable accomodations.
     
  3. Apr 30, 2013 #3 of 189
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    The title of the thread seemed a bit misleading. It sounded like Dish just flat out discriminated because the person is disabled...no mention of medical marijuana.

    IMO, he was wrongfully terminated, but this quote from the article makes it pretty clear Dish was legally in the right...
     
  4. Apr 30, 2013 #4 of 189
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    ^ If Dish cared about the employee, this wouldn't have happened.

    And Yes, I consider this action discriminatory. They know the state law allows this choice for the employee.
     
  5. Apr 30, 2013 #5 of 189
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,940
    870
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It seems that that ends the complaint. Not a lawful activity.
     
  6. Apr 30, 2013 #6 of 189
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    ^ It is under State law.

    But either way, it really has no bearing on his ability to do his job. If Dish cared, they would not have taken this action and would have respected state law.
     
  7. Apr 30, 2013 #7 of 189
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,940
    870
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The court ruled that his use of marijuana was illegal. You are asking DISH to look the other way when somebody does something illegal and violates their company policy?
     
  8. Apr 30, 2013 #8 of 189
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    I'm saying Dish should mind their own business and not harass the disabled for something that does not affect their job performance. This guy was obviously not driving company vehicles or operating equipment that could put others at risk.

    Dish is clearly developing a track record for actions that are offensive to employees and customers.
     
  9. Apr 30, 2013 #9 of 189
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,364
    54
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    This one is tough. While I can understand Dish's side here they've got to know that the state where they've decided to have their headquarters is Colorado and medical marijuana is legal there and is engrained as part of the local culture of the state, so maybe they should be more sensitive to the reality of their surroundings. I just keep coming back to where I'd hate to think my employer could fire me for what my doctor prescribed me or for that matter for the fact that I decided to have a couple beers after work in the privacy of my own home. As long as it doesn't affect my job performance or put my employer in a bad light and I'm not showing up under the influence it seems they should be willing to live and let live here so to speak. In any case this is probably going to end up mostly being more negative publicity for a company that doesn't really need any.
     
  10. Apr 30, 2013 #10 of 189
    tommiet

    tommiet Godfather

    356
    7
    Dec 28, 2005
    What does being disabled have to do with this????? Sound more like your PO'd about the employee getting fired for a positive drug test.
     
  11. Apr 30, 2013 #11 of 189
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Doctor Whom Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,484
    360
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I agree this thread is misnamed. It makes it sounds like they discriminated because he is disabled... but nobody, including the ex-employee is making that argument... I think the thread should be renamed to reflect that the employee was fired because of his use of marijuana... not because he was disabled.
     
  12. Apr 30, 2013 #12 of 189
    356B

    356B Icon

    908
    1
    Oct 11, 2008
    Northern...
    A friend is publisher of our local newspaper owned by the mega giant "Media News". He is required to drug test everyone who wants to work at the paper. Marijuana is on the no hire list whatever the situation yet a potential employee can drink a fifth of Gin a night an they're good to go........ :coffee
     
  13. Apr 30, 2013 #13 of 189
    tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    1,976
    32
    Mar 30, 2002
    Some of you are way off base on this. There is no obligation to allow a employee to be on weed just as no obligation if they test positive for drinking. In Ct we had a seminar on this with the new law here. The employer is just as liable if on any drugs or drinking. Both by the way can now be legal that does make any difference.
     
  14. Apr 30, 2013 #14 of 189
    Volatility

    Volatility Legend

    436
    10
    May 22, 2010
  15. May 1, 2013 #15 of 189
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,894
    283
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I feel like I'm in the thread 5th grader suspended at nature camp for Swiss Army knife puzzling over why in the 21st Century people in this country are so afraid of making judgement calls.

    Yeah, employers have the absolute right to drug test employees and even to terminate them if they fail the test.

    But employers also have the right to decide to not terminate them, but rather to insist on some kind of treatment if appropriate. The real issue is does the employee constitute a problem in the workplace, not just whether he failed a drug test.

    But hey, why not use a method any single purpose robot could accomplish - pass or good bye. The question is, why not hire a robot instead of an expensive supervisor, HR manager, vice-president of enforcing arbitrary rules,...?

    I wonder how the North Koreans handle rule enforcement?

    Like I said in that other thread:

    American children are literally being indoctrinated in the schools to believe that violations of rules must consistently result in a defined punishment. Any other outcome than the one stated would be unjust and risky. No judgement should be allowed in the administration of the punishment. Why would it be any different in the workplace. Or in society generally?

    My new mantra: "don't violate Godwin's law, don't violate Godwin's law, don't...."

    Oh darned. Does my comment about North Korea constitute a violation of Godwin's law? Well, not really. Because it literally references only one totalitarian government situation. And we don't deviate from the rule as written in this Country in the 21st Century.
     
  16. May 1, 2013 #16 of 189
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,940
    870
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That is close enough for Godwin in my book.

    Colorado follows the legal doctrine of "employment-at-will" which provides that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, neither an employer nor an employee is required to give notice or advance notice of termination or resignation. Additionally, neither an employer nor an employee is required to give a reason for the separation from employment.

    The general principle behind the concept of employment-at-will is that the doctrine promotes efficiency and flexibility in the employment context. Employment-at-will allows employees to seek out the position best suited for their talents and allows employers to seek out the best employees for their needs.

    An employer may not discriminate in terminating an employee. It is discriminatory to discharge an employee based upon disability, race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, and ancestry.
    source
    That final point is what is being alleged in this thread. That the former employee's disability was the reason for dismissal. It was not. It was the former employee's drug use that led to the dismissal. Drug users are not a protected class, and having that drug use ruled illegal by the court does not help the former employee's complaint.

    Entering the land of speculation (a dangerous place) we could speculate that DISH could terminate an employee for legal drug use ... such as taking heart medication or chemotherapy. DISH didn't do that. If the court had ruled that the actual drug use was legal I might be on Brandon's side. But the lower court and the appeals court ruled his drug use was illegal. Having the drug use declared illegal certainly does not help Brandon's case.
     
    2 people like this.
  17. May 1, 2013 #17 of 189
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Doctor Whom Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,484
    360
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I also don't think the judgement-call scenario from that other thread applies here.

    Consider... Driving while intoxicated is illegal... whether or not you get into an accident. IF you are pulled over at a license check, and found to be driving drunk, you don't get to say "but I didn't have an accident" and get away with the drinking and driving.

    The scenario here is essentially the same. This employee was using drugs that were determined to be used in an illegal manner, so he can't say "but it didn't effect my job performance" and get around the company's drug policy.

    IF he had been using the drugs legally, then I could back the employee as it would be like getting fired for taking medication at home that didn't affect job performance.

    We don't have another case to examine, I gather, so in this specific case... Dish was well within its rights to dismiss the employee.
     
  18. May 1, 2013 #18 of 189
    sregener

    sregener Godfather

    630
    26
    Apr 17, 2012
    The medical effects of marijuana use are well-documented, and arguing that its use will not affect job performance is at best dubious.

    That states have made the determination that the enforcement of drug laws is more damaging in the case of marijuana then the aforementioned medical effects for individuals does nothing to change this.
     
  19. May 1, 2013 #19 of 189
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I think the problem is this...

    You can administer a test to see if someone is drunk. You can't (easily) administer a test to see if someone has had alcohol in the past 'x' days. Once the liver processes it all, it's pretty much gone.

    You can administer a test to see if someone has HAD marijuana recently. As far as I know, there's no "breathalyzer" for cannabis (and I'm more than willing to be corrected on this).

    If you could easily tell the difference between someone being high and having BEEN high, you could regulate marijuana like alcohol - no showing up at work stoned, just like you can't show up at work drunk.
     
  20. May 1, 2013 #20 of 189
    tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    1,976
    32
    Mar 30, 2002
    So now Dish or the US is like North Korea. And because Dish does not want someone high working for them. Wow.
     

Share This Page