[sunnyatlast]

Yes, it is probably the Brandon Coates in Colorado Supreme Court Case.

In this article on it, an excellent point was made among others:

"Speaking last, Michael Francisco of the state attorney general's office, sided with Dish. He said limiting the off-duty activities statute only to Colorado law could bring "absurdities," such as someone convicted of a crime like federal tax fraud not being able to be fired."

Confusion abounds as Colorado Supreme Court considers workers' pot use - The Denver Post

And then there is the conflict of federal law that supersedes state laws:

"If you are a federal contractor, your marijuana policies are governed, first and foremost, by the federal Drug Free Workplace Act. This Act (the DFW Act) requires entities that contract with the federal government to enforce zero-tolerance policies regarding use of illegal drugs in the workplace.

Because federal contractors are subject to federal law pursuant to the terms of their contracts, and because marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law, no state law may require a federal contractor to accommodate marijuana use. Recognizing this conflict, a number of state statutes—such as those in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, and New York—expressly exempt federal contractors from any duty to accommodate employees’ marijuana use. But the DFW Act does not regulate drug use outside of work hours, nor does it mandate drug testing, so the interplay between the DFW Act and state legalization laws still remains uncertain."

Medical Marijuana and the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know Now - Forbes