Brandon Coats v. DISH Network, LLC, 350 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2015)
Brandon Coats v. DISH Network, LLC, 350 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2015)
Embedded Files
Reporter's interview Michael Evans and Brandon Coats outside Colorado Supreme Court of after oral arguments in Coats v. DISH Network, LLC
The case for Brandon Coats
The case for Brandon Coats
Brandon Coats was a quadriplegic employed as a telephone customer-service employee at Colorado-based DISH Network, LLC. He worked there for several years with positive performance reviews. A collateral issue of quadriplegia were episodes of seizures. Therefore, he legally obtained a Colorado State license for medical marijuana use to regulate his seizures through a prescription by a medical doctor. His use of medical marijuana only occured while he was at home after work.
This case in the news:
This case in the news:
The Legal Environment
The Legal Environment
This was in 2010, a time when medical use of marijuana in Colorado was a new phenomenon and highly controversial given Federal law. DISH Network violated a Colorado State-specific statute, C.R.S. 24-34-402.5 by terminating his employment based on his state-licensed use of medical marijuana at home, during non-working hours. The Colorado Constitution's Medical Marijuana Amendment (Colo. Const. art XVIII sec. 14) made such use "lawful" for purposes of the statute, notwithstanding any federal laws prohibiting medical marijuana use. The US Constitution delegated health and welfare powers to the States under the 10th Amendment. C.R.S. 24-34-402.5 prohibited employees from being disciplined or terminated for engaging in legal activities after work, off duty.
Michael Evans consulting with Brandon Coats during oral argument at the Colorado Supreme Court
Michael Evans represents Brandon Coats against Colorado giant DISH Network, LLC
Michael Evans prepares for oral arguments to the Colorado Supreme Court in Coats v. DISH Network, LLC
Michael Evans representing Brandon Coats against Colorado-based DISH Network, LLC
The Ruling
The Ruling
The Colorado Supreme Court chose capitalism over established law with the eyes of the nation upon it.
The trial court dismissed Coat's complaint for failure to state a claim after finding that medical marijuana use was not "lawful" under Federal law. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In a case of first impression across the country, the Colorado Supreme Court caved under the pressures of business and capitalism, and refused to apply an accurate interpretion of a Colorado State statute, a Colorado Constitutional Amendment, and a US Constitutional Amendement. Turning its back on the law (10th Amendment) and Mr. Coats, it erroneously held: the term 'lawful' as used in section CRS 24-34-402.5 did not apply to medical marijuana use because it is unlawful under Federal law. Their holding was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse