Cannabis & Employment Laws

Most states that have legislated medical or leisure cannabis leave screening and decisions made afterwards up to the individual company’s discretion. A handful of states have policies in location that in some way resolve anti-discrimination for medical cannabis clients. Significantly less states require companies to take accommodations for these clients.
The following table includes states that have some type of statutory language requiring companies to not refuse employment or otherwise discriminate against a qualifying medical cannabis patient (or medical cannabis «cardholder» in some states).
State Laws
Medical Cannabis Anti-Discrimination Employee Protection (Year)
Medical Cannabis Required Accommodation
Recreational Cannabis Anti-Discrimination Employee Protection (Year)
Yes (2017 )
Yes (2011 )
District of Columbia
Yes (2018 )
No (Repealed in 2017)
Yes (2012 )
Yes (2015 )
Yes (2014 )
Yes (2019 )
Yes (2016 )
Yes (2013 )
No
For the a lot of part, as long as workers aren’t bringing their medical cannabis to work, aren’t working in a job where disability might lead to serious harm to others and aren’t working in a federally associated task, companies can’t take medical cannabis use or favorable drug test results into consideration when making hiring and firing choices.
As shown in the above table, many states do not need any special work environment accommodations for medical cannabis clients and leave policies connecting to cannabis usage and subsequent disciplinary actions approximately individual companies. Nevada significantly differs this pattern. While the state doesn’t need an employer to modify the job or working conditions of an employee who is a medical cannabis patient, it does need an employer to try to clear up lodgings for the medical needs of a staff member who takes part in the medical use of cannabis offered such an accommodation would not present a hazard of harm or danger to individuals or residential or commercial property, impose undue difficulty on the employer or forbid the employee from satisfying any and all of their task obligations.
Nevada likewise passed AB 132 in 2019, which now allows for work protections for leisure users also, becoming the very first state in the nation with such a provision on the books.
In 2016, Maine citizens passed an effort permitting the leisure use, retail sale and tax of cannabis by popular vote. The effort consisted of a work anti-discrimination provision for leisure users as well. Maine’s General Assembly rescinded this statute through legislation in 2017.
Legislation Recently Considered in the States
Legislators continue to consider what language needs to be included in state policies to assist companies adjust to altering cannabis laws. Wisconsin is thinking about AB 220 which would legislate leisure cannabis and includes employment protections for the legal usage of cannabis.
New Jersey is considering several costs associated with medical cannabis in basic and the majority of consist of some employment defenses for clients. AB 20 has passed both homes and would forbid employer discrimination against people who are medical cannabis clients. AB 10 is presently being fixed on concurrence and would, similarly, need employers to present proof that a worker’s use of Medical Cannabis 101 cannabis beyond working hours somehow impaired that individual or hindered their capability to do their job before being able to take any disciplinary actions.
Finally, in 2019, Massachusetts is considering legislation to remove work environment drug testing for cannabis.
Reducing Employment Barriers
Some states are working to lower employment barriers for individuals with previous low-level cannabis convictions.
For example, a bill was introduced in Alaska in 2019 that would limit the release of particular records referring to low-level cannabis convictions for criminal offenses that would be thought about lawful today. This would make sure that employers would not have access to details about cannabis convictions of prospective employees, thus removing a barrier to work the opportunity to end up being a contributing member of society.
Similarly, an expense in Illinois is working its method through the Senate that would seal records of non-violent criminal convictions for 10 years after the termination of the petitioner’s last sentence. This expense particularly states that a petitioner may petition the court to expunge records of a conviction or guilty plea for ownership of not more then 10 grams of cannabis if 3 years or more have passed given that the petitioner has finished his/her sentence. Like the Alaska bill, this costs aims to minimize barriers to work for individuals with past cannabis convictions.
Medical Cannabis and Employer Liability
There are a few states working to attend to the possibility of employees being under the impact of medical cannabis during the course of their work.
Indiana, for instance, presented a bill that would disallow work discrimination against medical cannabis patients, but also add specific securities for companies. The bill would enable companies to restrict medical clients from carrying out any task while under the impact of cannabis. Prohibition of the performance specific tasks would not be thought about unlawful discrimination even if it led to monetary damage to the worker. This arrangement was probably drafted with the intent of reducing a company’s liability for the actions of staff members under the impact of cannabis and completing certain tasks related to their employment such as driving, running heavy equipment, or tasks associated with public health and safety.