Legal Opinion
Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided January 11, 1996No. 1:95-cv-02152PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BRIMMER, District Judge.
Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment. The parties do not dispute the facts, and both sides agree that the Court’s order will resolve the matter.
Background
The plaintiff, who is using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” is an employee of the Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort (“Resort”). The Resort implemented a drug and alcohol testing policy. 1 2The policy: (1) Prohibits employees from using or possessing illegal drugs or illegally obtained prescription medication; (2) prohibits employees from using or possessing alcohol on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Martin Marietta Corp. v. LorenzSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- Carmela Mares v. Conagra Poultry Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Mariani v. Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical ServiceColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
3Cited by15 opinions
- Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Lee v. City of Columbus, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
- Martin v. State of Kan.District Court, D. Kansas · 1998
- Farmiloe v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2002
- Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.