The Evans Firm

Attorney Michael D. Evans and client Brandon Coats, who was fired from his job at Dish Network in 2010 for smoking medical marijuana off the clock.

Coloradans may be able to legally smoke pot now — but lighting up a joint, even off the clock, can still get you fired.

Although Centennial State voters approved a measure last fall to legalize marijuana use, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that employees can still be fired for testing positive for the drug -- even if they never show up to work impaired.

A divided panel of judges decided that because marijuana use is illegal under federal law, employees are not protected from being terminated for using it.

The case centered on Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical-marijuana patient who was fired in 2010 from his job as a telephone operator for Dish Network after testing positive for the drug. Lawyers for Coats argued he was protected under a Colorado law that states it is illegal for workers to be terminated for participating in lawful activities off the clock.

But a trial court dismissed the claim in 2011, siding with Dish Network that medical marijuana use isn't a "lawful activity" covered by the termination law.

Now, even though the law has changed, the outcome for Coats has not. In its ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals sought to define the word "lawful," ultimately concluding that for something to be lawful it "must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law."

Coats' attorney Michael Evans said the ruling is a major blow to Coloradans who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. 
"This case not only impacts Mr. Coats, but also some 127,816 medical-marijuana patient-employees in Colorado who could be summarily terminated even if they are in legal compliance with Colorado state law," he said in a statement.

Evans plans to appeal the ruling and said he believes the three-judge panel ultimately reached its decision out of a reluctance to issue a groundbreaking reversal that could have a far-reaching impact as Colorado establishes how to govern its new drug laws.
"What they did was the conservative thing, the safe thing to do," Evans said of the ruling.

The court acknowledged that Dish Network never accused Coats of being impaired while on the job. Lawyers for the former employee said he received satisfactory performance reviews all three years he worked at the company. 

But Dish Network ultimately has the right to fire marijuana smokers regardless of whether they were good employees, the court ruled. "While we agree that the general purpose of (the Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute) is to keep an employer's proverbial nose out of an employee's off-site off-hours business ... we can find no legislative intent to extend employment protection to those engaged in activities that violate federal law," Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janice Davidson wrote in the opinion.

Judge John Webb dissented in the 2-1 vote, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion on the definition of lawful. 

If the federal government had issue with various states' versions of lawful off-duty activities statutes, it could have passed a federal law by now, Webb argued.

"[Congress] could have resolved that problem with legislation empowering employers to discharge employees who have engaged in conduct that violated any federal law. To date, Congress has not done so. Recognition that protecting employees from discharge based on their off-duty conduct is primarily a matter of state concern favors measuring 'lawful' based on state law," he wrote in his dissent.

The high cost of tuition has more people questioning whether it’s worth it to go to college, according to a new survey.

Nearly 57 percent of people think college is a good financial investment for young adults these days, according to the survey of 3,000 Americans, which was conducted by Rasmusson Reports on behalf of Country Financial.

That’s down sharply from just four years ago, when 81 percent of people saw college as a good investment. The figure has fallen every year since 2008, the year the financial crisis hit.

This year, about 24 percent said they did not think a higher education was worth the investment, while about 19 percent were unsure.

Women were slightly more likely than men to say college was a good investment despite the rising cost, according to the Country Financial Survey. These days, women also are more likely to go to college than men.

The survey also found that wealthier people were more likely to see college as a good investment than those who make less money.

On the other hand, Americans seem to have a higher tolerance for debt related to education, at least as compared to last year. For example, last year 61 percent of those survyed said $20,000 or less in student loan debt was too much. This year, just 50 percent thought $20,000 or less would be too much.

When it comes to who should foot the bill, the vast majority of respondents said parents should be responsible for at least part of their kids’ college tuition. The results were roughly the same as the previous two years.

The cost of both public and private college educations has been rising steadily for decades, even when adjusted for inflation, according to the Department of Education.

Meanwhile, some economists have recently started raising alarm bells about the nation’s ballooning student loan debt, which some say has surpassed $1 trillion.

Still, many also caution that if you want a good job in this economy – or perhaps any job at all - it really pays to have a college degree.  The unemployment rate for college graduates was 4.1 percent in June, compared with 8.4 percent for those with just a high school degree.

Do you have a question about affording college? Join CNBC money guru Sharon Epperson at 9:30 a.m. ET Wednesday for a live chat on paying for college.

Related:

More college students trading dorm for home

The upside of not savings for your child’s college education

Just 4 percent of people who grew up in the bottom fifth of the household income ladder made it to the top fifth as adults, according to a new long-term study showing the limits of American mobility.

“The rags-to-riches story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality,” said Erin Currier, project manager with the Pew Charitable Trust's Economic Mobility Project, which prepared the report.

The analysis of household income across two generations, released Monday, found that very few people born to poor parents ended up rich, and only 8 percent of people whose parents were in the top fifth of households dropped to the bottom fifth as adults.

The study found that the vast majority of American families are bringing in more money than their parents did, adjusted fror inflation, than when they were the same age. But especially among the most poor, bigger paychecks aren't often enough to push families  up the income ladder.

Related: Do you make $30,000 a year or less?

Most people raised in very rich and very poor households didn’t see their own circumstances change much when they grew up. The report found that 70 percent of Americans whose parents were in the bottom fifth of the income ladder stayed below the middle as adults. And 63 percent of those born in the top fifth of the income ladder stayed above the middle when they became adults.

Those born in the middle three-fifths of the income spectrum did have a higher likelihood of moving either up or down the ladder as adults.

In all, 35 percent of American households could be classified as upwardly mobile, meaning they had a higher household income than their parents at the same age and were at a higher point in the income distribution ladder than their parents had been.

People can make more money than their parents and still not rise up the income ladder because median income has increased at all levels.

Currier said that means many people may feel more successful than their parents – maybe because they own a slightly bigger house or have a flat-screen TV – but aren’t much better off relative to other households today.

"The general public thinks there’s much more mobility than there actually is," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, who was not involved in the research.

Mishel also noted that many households have more income than their parents did at the same age because more women are working than in the previous generation.

That's a contributing factor that the Pew report also acknowledged. Looking more narrowly just at men, they found that 59 percent of sons are earning more than their dads did at the same age.

The Pew analysis was based on the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, an in-depth look at family finances, using data from 1968 through 2009. The long-running study allowed the researchers to compare how adults are doing in comparison to how their parents were doing at the same point in their lives. The figures were adjusted for inflation, family size and age.

A separate look at total wealth found that half of Americans are wealthier than their parents were at the same age.

The fact that most households are bringing in more income than their parents but only half are wealthier is a little troubling, Currier said.

“Clearly families do have more money in terms of what’s coming in every month, but they don’t have greater savings, they don't have greater assets - for the most part - than their parents did,” she said.

One of the biggest ways individuals can improve their circumstances relative to their parents is to get a college degree.

The researchers found that a four-year degree triples a person’s chances of making it from the bottom to the top of the income ladder. College graduates also were more likely to be doing better than their parents were at the same age, in terms of both income and wealth.

The researchers also found that African-Americans were less likely than whites to outearn their parents. The data was too limited to do a similar analysis of other racial and ethnic minorities.

Related:

To get your kids ahead in life, get a college degree

We are the median: Living on $50,000 a year

  Funding from local governments’ two biggest sources -- state aid and property taxes -- fell for the first time since 1980, according to a report released this month by the Pew American Cities Project. The decrease in funding from these two sources has forced many local areas to cut expenses significantly. Relying on the Pew report, 24/7 Wall St. identified eight states slashing local funding to cities, towns, counties and school districts.

24/7 Wall St.’s independent analysis of data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the U.S. Census Bureau indicates states that cut funding the most had budgets that were particularly hard hit during this period. Some suffered budget shortfalls that forced them to cut spending. Others experienced drops in tax revenue that prompted the same response.

Of the eight states with the highest cuts in local funding, four experienced among the steepest declines in tax revenue. Wyoming, which had the worst decline in tax revenue, fell a whopping 21.9 percent during the period.

Budget shortfalls were among the worst in many of these states. Arizona, California and Nevada, among the eight states cutting local budgets, had the first, second and third highest budget shortfalls as a percentage of their general fund. Arizona faced a 65 percent shortfall in 2010.

24/7 Wall St.: 10 states that cannot pay their bills

These budget shortfalls, according to Robert Zahradnik, research director for the Pew American Cities Project, forced states to make deep budget cuts, hitting local governments -- and their employees -- particularly hard. According to the report, the number of employees on local government payrolls fell in 45 states between 2008 and 2011.

In several of the states with the largest cuts to local governments, these declines were the most pronounced. California, Arizona and Nevada were among the 10 states with the largest drops in government employees per person. In Nevada, the number of government employees fell by 15.4 percent, the most in the country.

While police and fire departments and other areas of local budgets were hit hard as well, no area suffered more than school districts. Zahradnik explained, “about half of the reduction of the local government jobs were in the education sector, and that’s not entirely surprising because that’s where the staff and the money are for the local government.” This is a notable departure from standard practice during a downturn in the economy. Usually, Zahradnik noted, local governments will leave education off the table because it is something the public wants to protect. In the great recession, however, there simply were no other options.

24/7 Wall St.: 8 things to do if you haven't planned for retirement

24/7 Wall St. identified the eight states with a 5 percent or greater decrease in state aid to cities, towns, counties, and school districts between 2009 and 2010 based on state funding to regional governments and government employee data from the Pew American Cities Project report, “The Local Squeeze: Falling Revenues and Growing Demand for Services Challenge Cities, Counties, and School Districts.” The report relies on the latest available Census Bureau information on state budgets. It also calculated the change in government workers between December 2008 and December 2011 using Bureau of Labor Statistics data on government employee figures, as well as population estimates, also from the Census Bureau. Separately, 24/7 Wall St. obtained state budget shortfall data from the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities, as well as changes in tax revenue between 2009 and 2010 from the Census Bureau.

These are the eight states slashing local funding the most.

1) New Mexico

•  Percent decline in local funding: 10.4 percent
•  Actual decline local funding: $498 million (9th largest)
•  State budget shortfall (2010): 18.2 percent (11th smallest)
•  Percent change in government workers per capita: -5.4 percent (16th largest decline)

Out of all states, New Mexico cut funding to its localities the most, reducing spending by more that 10 percent between 2009 and 2010. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, additional state cuts also resulted in fewer funds for higher education, the state workforce and services for the elderly and the disabled. The Santa Fe New Mexican writes that the Santa Fe School District endured the worst of its fiscal cuts in the 2009-2010 school year, when they were underfunded by about $11 million. After three consecutive years of deep budget cuts, New Mexico is now projecting a budget surplus of $250 million in 2012. NPR reports state leaders are debating whether to restore some services.

2) Wyoming

•  Percent decline in local funding: 9.5 percent
•  Actual decline local funding: $185 million (19th largest)
•  State budget shortfall (2010): 1.8 percent (the smallest)
•  Percent change in government workers per capita: +2.5 percent (2nd largest increase)

Between 2009 and 2010, Wyoming’s local governments’ revenue suffered from what Pew calls a “one-two punch”: shrinking in both state aid and property taxes. According to Census State Government Finance data, state aid fell by $185 million, while tax revenues declined by 21.9 percent -- the highest proportional decline in the country. Belt-tightening measures were necessary for the state to avoid layoffs of government officials. According to the Billings Gazette, officials at the Natrona County Detention Center were told that if they did not comply with budget cuts as high as 27 percent, they would be forced to lay off almost a third of their staff.

24/7 Wall St.: America's richest school districts

3) Virginia

•  Percent decline in local funding: 8.5 percent
•  Actual decline local funding: $1 billion (4th largest) 
•  State budget shortfall (2010): 24.1 percent (20th largest)
•  Percent change in government workers per capita: -4.7 percent (tied at 22nd largest decline)

In February 2010, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell proposed a total of $2.3 billion in cuts in order to balance the state budget without any increase in taxes. As a result of these cuts, the state of Virginia reduced transfers to its localities by more than $1 billion. The city of Roanoke, which was forced to raise taxes after the state’s budget was passed, responded to these cuts with particular frustration. Local officials in Roanoke denounced the state initiatives as indirect taxation, because they required municipalities to raise taxes to cover those funding cuts.

4) Minnesota

•  Percent decline in local funding: 8.2 percent
•  Actual decline local funding: $928 million (5th largest)
•  State budget shortfall (2010): 22.7 percent (21st smallest)
•  Percent change in government workers per capita: -3.8 percent (24th smallest decline)

According to the Minnesota Budget Project, the inability of the state to pay down its deficit in the 2010-2011 biennium was caused by a heavy reliance on one-time measures that failed to correct or reduce long-run deficits. In 2011, the League of Minnesota Cities sued the state’s legislature and governor in order to continue receiving aid after a government shutdown that July. The cities eventually agreed to accept a $138 million dollar cut in the funds to be received -- a reduction of about 19 percent.

Read the rest of States Slashing Local Funding at 24/7 Wall St.'s site

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON -- Gary Feeman has been searching for a job for 16 months. He's not ready to give up just yet, but the 60-year-old worries he is running out of options.

Feeman is among the more than 5 million Americans who have been out of work for more than six months and who represent the heart of the crisis in the labor market.

Their plight also poses a warning that U.S. unemployment may not drop back to its pre-recession levels and could be stuck higher than many policymakers expect.

Feeman, from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has sent out as many as 100 resumes. But the former maintenance director at a small amusement park in the area, has had only one interview in person. That was in January.

"I have tried everything under the sun," he said. "The frustrating thing to me is that when you apply for a job, employers do not respond either way."

One of the biggest challenges facing U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues is to understand whether people like Feeman will eventually find work once the economy gathers enough speed.

Bernanke appears to think they will and he has suggested more stimulus by the Fed might be needed to kick-start demand, and job creation, into a higher gear.

But if he's wrong, the central bank risks pumping too much money into the economy in an effort to help people who have become unemployable. Rather than bringing down the jobless rate, the Fed could eventually fuel higher inflation.

"We're living through a juncture in U.S. policy history in which we're making major decisions about what type of society we're likely to be," said Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago. "Those decisions will affect things for a generation."

Some 40 percent of the nation's unemployed have been out of work for more than six months. That's over twice the rate of long-term unemployment just before the 2007-2009 recession.

Bernanke mostly pins long-term joblessness on weak demand from American consumers and companies. In late March, he pointed to data showing that, compared to before the recession, the short-term unemployed also are taking much longer to find work.

This, he argued, justifies the Fed's policy of keeping interest rates low to help the economy. Persistent long-term unemployment is a risk because it might someday make people unemployable, he said.

"If progress in reducing unemployment is too slow, the long-term unemployed will see their skills and labor force attachment atrophy further, possibly converting a cyclical problem into a structural one," Bernanke told a conference of economists.

Long-term unemployment has other costs for the economy. A paper for the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank, finds that men who lose their job when the unemployment rate is above 8 percent forfeit twice as much in future earnings than if had they lost their job when the rate was below 6 percent.

Still, a number of private economists argue there are signs the structural unemployment problem is already larger than Bernanke would acknowledge.

Wall Street more gloomy than the Fed
Most Fed policymakers think the jobless rate could fall to somewhere between 5.2 and 6 percent before the economy heats up enough to fuel inflation. That's a higher "natural" unemployment rate than the roughly 5 percent rate estimated by most Fed policymakers three years ago.

Many private sector economists have shifted their estimate of the natural rate even higher. Credit Suisse pegs it at around 6.5 percent, and UBS at near 7 percent.

"If that is the case the Fed will run out of effectiveness much sooner than they realize," said Adolfo Laurenti, deputy chief economist at Mesirow Financial, in Chicago. He estimates the natural rate at between 6.5 and 7 percent.

Some economists see signs of an increase in the natural jobless rate in the widespread mismatch between job openings and the qualifications of those seeking work.

In U.S. manufacturing, for example, more than 600,000 jobs are unfilled because of a lack of skilled applicants, according to a study by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute.

Many of the companies that are hiring are turning increasingly to younger workers with more up-to-date skills training, rather than taking a chance on people who have been out of work for a long time.

In Kentucky, a construction firm responded to the recession like most of its rivals: from 2008 to 2010, Gray Construction cut 51 of its total of 245 employees. As signs of growth returned to the economy, it started hiring again, with a focus on college graduates with specialized degrees.

"There has to be a very compelling reason to take somebody who was not in the industry, who has changed over to the industry, versus somebody who graduated with an engineering degree or construction management degree," said president and chief executive Stephen Gray.

Another possible source of a run-up in the natural jobless rate is that firms are relying more and more on automation technology. Workers untrained in using that technology could struggle to get jobs.

Some economists think long-term unemployment is also kept high because many workers can't move to find work because they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

"I don't think people have fully appreciated how deep the hole is," said Michael Greenstone, an economist at MIT university and former chief economist at the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. "The Great Recession is going to be living in our collective homes for many more years to come."

The Fed has bought $2.3 trillion in securities and kept interest rates near zero for over three years to aid the economy and fight the sharpest jump in unemployment since World War Two.

So far it has helped to bring the jobless rate down from 10 percent in 2009 to 8.2 percent in March, although many of the unemployed have become so demoralized that they have left the formal labor force.

If some economists are right to believe the natural unemployment rate is as high as 7 percent, then the Fed could hit a wall before long and need to tighten monetary policy.

Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota -- one of the policymakers at the Fed who suggests rates will have to rise sooner than later -- thinks last year's rise in inflation was a sign the Fed is approaching that wall.

"There's a point at which it gets to be very costly in terms of how much inflation you'd have to generate in order to get a reduction in unemployment," Kocherlakota said last month.

Such predictions are grim for construction workers like Mfthel, 36, who most days sits on a plastic crate at an intersection in Brooklyn, New York, waiting for casual work -- as he has done most days since the recession hammered his industry.

Mfthel, who declined to give his family name, and some of the other dozen men waiting on the street corner with tools and steel-toe boots said they had permanent jobs before the construction boom ended. Now they can expect $7 to $10 an hour for repairing buildings, moving furniture and paving driveways.

"Now they don't come or they don't pay enough," he said. "You can't do much with 20 bucks."

Discuss this story on Facebook.

North Dakota is currently experiencing an oil boom, with crude production in January jumping by 59 percent from one year prior.

As gas prices reach record highs across many parts of the country, Americans have been blaming oil companies. But as much as they are disliked, the oil and gas industry is also an indispensable part of many states and an asset to their local economies. 24/7 Wall St. has identified the 10 states with the most oil reserves, or the estimated amount of oil in the state, and examined the effects that the industry has on their economies.

In the states with the greatest amounts of oil reserves, those effects can be tremendous. The oil and natural gas industry supports nearly 25 percent of the economies of Texas and Wyoming, much more than the 6.8 percent it supports on a national scale. Every state on this list exceeds the national number by a significant amount.

The oil and gas industry also can have an outsized impact on employment in some states. On a national level, only 4.6 percent of all jobs are attributable to the operations of the oil and gas industry, directly or indirectly. In many states, the industry’s impact on employment is significantly higher. In five states, all of which are included on this list, the industry supports more than 10 percent of all jobs.

24/7 Wall St.: The 10 States With the Cheapest Gas

While it is not necessarily the cause, the states with the most oil reserves generally have particularly strong economies. Six of the 10 states with the most reserves have among the lowest unemployment rates in the country; seven had the smallest increases in the unemployment rate from 2004 to 2010; and eight of the states had the largest increases in median household income from 2005 to 2010.

To identify the states with the most oil reserves, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. We also examined data from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Petroleum Institute.

These are the 10 states swimming in oil.

1. Texas

• Proved reserves of crude oil: 5,006 million barrels
• Oil refineries: 23 (the most)
• Unemployment rate, Jan. 2012: 7.3 percent (23rd lowest)
• Share of jobs supported by oil and gas: 14.3 percent (third highest)

Texas is the nation’s largest center for oil, with more than 5 billion barrels of proven reserves. It is also home to 23 refineries, which add to the size of the sector. The oil and natural gas industry supports 24.3 percent of the state’s total economy, which ties with Wyoming for the nation’s largest share. The industry also is responsible for 14.3 percent of total employment in the state, both directly and indirectly, which is the third-highest percentage. In numbers, this represents nearly two million jobs -- the highest in the country.

24/7 Wall St.: Countries that spend the most on health care

2. Alaska

• Proved reserves of crude oil: 3,566 million barrels
• Oil refineries: 6 (tied for fourth most)
• Unemployment rate, Jan. 2012: 7.2 percent (22nd lowest)
• Share of jobs supported by oil and gas: 10.3 percent (fifth highest)

Alaska, the nation’s largest state by size, is home to more than three and a half billion barrels of crude oil. The oil and natural gas industry supports 16.9 percent of the state’s economy. It also accounts for 10.3 percent of jobs in the state -- the fifth-largest share in the country. The industry likely will expand in the near future as more oil is accessed.

3. California

• Proved reserves of crude oil: 2,835 million barrels
• Oil refineries: 19 (second most)
• Unemployment rate, Jan. 2012: 10.9 percent (tied for second highest)
• Share of jobs supported by oil and gas: 4.6 percent (16th highest)

California is the third-largest state by size, and sits on top of the third-largest amount of oil. As a result, the state is home to 19 refineries -- the second most in the country. This oil contributes a significant amount to the economy, supporting 7 percent of the state’s total gross domestic product in 2009. The industry also supports more than 900,000 jobs, or 4.6 percent of total state employment. While the share is rather small, the absolute total number is the second largest in the country.

24/7 Wall St.: 9 U.S. cities where jobs are booming

4. North Dakota

• Proved reserves of crude oil: 1,046 million barrels
• Oil refineries: 1 (tied for 24th most)
• Unemployment rate, Jan. 2012: 3.2 percent (the lowest)
• Share of jobs supported by oil and gas: 7.5 percent (sixth highest)

North Dakota has one of the strongest economies in the country. The state currently has an unemployment rate of just 3.2 percent -- the lowest among all states, and even lower than its 2004 rate of 3.5 percent. From 2005 to 2010, median household income in the state increased by 18.6 percent, the country’s highest rate. The state is currently experiencing an oil boom, with crude production in January jumping by 59 percent from one year prior. The oil and natural gas industry supports 11.8 percent of the state’s economy -- the sixth-largest share in the country.

5. New Mexico

• Proved reserves of crude oil: 700 million barrels
• Oil refineries: 3 (tied for 14th most)
• Unemployment rate, Jan. 2012: 7.0 percent (tied for 19th lowest)
• Share of jobs supported by oil and gas: 7.5 percent (seventh highest)

The oil and natural gas industry has a strong presence in New Mexico, which sits atop 700 million barrels of proved reserves of crude oil. The industry accounts for 10.6 percent of the state’s economy and is responsible for 7.5 percent of total jobs. From 2004 to 2010, the unemployment rate in the state increased from 5.8 percent to 7.9 percent. While this is a significant increase, it is among the lowest increases in the country for this period.