Medical marijuana users in Colorado will risk being fired if they test positive for THC in violation of their employers’ policies.

In a 6-0 decision Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an appeals court ruling that in the state’s lawful activities statute, the “term ‘lawful’ refers only to those activities that are lawful under both state and federal law.”

Because marijuana use — medical or recreational — is illegal under federal statute, the court held that employers can fire workers who violate a company drug policy, despite marijuana being legal in the state.The case, Coats v. Dish Network, began in 2010 after Dish Network fired Brandon Coats.

Coats, a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair since he was a teenager, obtained a state-issued medical marijuana license to treat painful muscle spasms in 2009. He consumes marijuana at home and after work.

Coats worked as a telephone customer service representative for Dish between 2007 and 2010.

In May 2010, Coats tested positive for THC, an active chemical in marijuana, during a random drug test. Coats informed the company he was a registered medical-marijuana patient and planned to continue using the drug. Dish fired Coats the next month, stating he had violated the company’s drug policy. Coats filed suit for wrongful termination.

“We are pleased the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with our position in this case,” said Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman in a statement after the opinion was published. “The court’s decision allows Colorado companies the freedom to write their own employment policies regarding marijuana. Not every business will opt for zero-tolerance, but it is important that the latitude now exists to craft a policy that fits the individual workplace.”

The attorney general’s office participated in the case as a friend-of-the-court, arguing the critical importance of workplace drug policies for employers in the state, her statement said.

“We applaud the Court in its decision allowing businesses to maintain a safe environment for their employees and the public,” said Tony Gagliardi, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, in a statement. “It was clearly stated when Colorado approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes that employers were under no obligation to change their current policy on drug use.”

According to the court’s opinion, Coats contended in his suit that the Legislature intended the term “lawful” in the statute to mean “lawful under Colorado state law.”

“We do not read the term ‘lawful’ to be so restrictive,” read the opinion, written by Justice Allison Eid. “Nothing in the language of the statute limits the term ‘lawful’ to state law. 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. We therefore decline Coats’s invitation to engraft a state law limitation on the statutory language.”

The executive director of the ACLU of Colorado said the organization regretted the court’s ruling.

“An employer has a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees are not impaired while on the job,” said the ACLU’s Nathan Woodliff-Stanley in a statement. “But an employer has no legitimate interest in worker’s off-the-job conduct that does not interfere with on-the-job performance. When there is no impact on doing the job, a worker’s off-duty use of medical marijuana is none of the employer’s business and should not be grounds for termination.”

He urged the Legislature to “fix this problem by making it clear in Colorado law that employees cannot be fired for off-duty conduct that is legal in this state and that does not impair their on-duty performance, including use of medical marijuana. “

Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, also commented on the decision.

“Small-business owners rely on drug policies and use them as a crucial tool to protect themselves, their employees and customers, so we are extremely happy the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Dish Network’s favor,” she said. “Many employers who use these policies do it because of the safety sensitivity of the job.”

— Rachel@coloradostatesman.com