Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44

Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic, was a Colorado-registered medical marijuana patient who used marijuana at home during nonworking hours in accordance with his state license.
Coats worked for Dish Network and tested positive for THC in a random drug test; Dish fired him for violating its drug policy.
Coats sued under Colorado's "lawful activities" statute, § 24-34-402.5, claiming discharge for engaging in a lawful off-duty activity (state-authorized medical marijuana use).
Dish moved to dismiss, arguing medical marijuana use is unlawful under federal law (Controlled Substances Act) and thus not a "lawful activity" protected by the statute.
The trial court dismissed; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that activities unlawful under federal law are not "lawful" under the statute. A dissent would have limited "lawful" to state law.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals: because federal law (CSA) prohibits marijuana, state-authorized medical marijuana use is not a "lawful" activity under § 24-34-402.5.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 24-34-402.5 protects state-authorized medical marijuana use off-duty	Coats: "Lawful" should be read as lawful under Colorado law; state constitutional amendment makes his use lawful and protected	Dish: "Lawful" must include federal law; marijuana remains illegal under the CSA so use is not protected	Held: "Lawful" is unrestricted and includes compliance with applicable federal law; medical marijuana use unlawful under federal law is not protected
Whether the Medical Marijuana Amendment makes use "lawful" for § 24-34-402.5 purposes	Coats: Amendment renders use lawful and confers a right to use for registered patients	Dish: Even if state law permits use, federal prohibition disqualifies it as "lawful" under the statute	Held: Court decides based on federal prohibition and declines to resolve whether the Amendment independently creates a state-law "right" to use

People v. Schuett, 833 P.2d 44 (Colo. 1992) (construing "lawful" to mean in accordance with the law)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (federal CSA restricts state law where conflict exists under the Supremacy Clause)
State Dep't of Revenue v. Adolph Coors Co., 724 P.2d 1341 (Colo. 1986) (court will not read restrictions into unambiguous statutory language)
DuBois v. People, 211 P.3d 41 (Colo. 2009) (standard of review: questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007) (court avoids adding words to a statute)
Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 303 P.3d 147 (Colo. App. 2013) (court of appeals majority holding federal prohibition defeats "lawful" claim)