These steps could help keep you out of trouble.
An employee in a safety-sensitive job who has been diagnosed with cancer is selected for a random drug test. The test result comes back positive for TCHA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid -- are you sorry you asked?). The employee claims he's using a legal cannabis product, not smoking pot, to help with the pain from his medical condition. The employer allows the employee to get his urine sample retested by a different lab. The retested sample also comes back positive. The employee is fired for violating the employer's drug policy.
The employee sues for discrimination under his state disability rights law, in this case the Ohio Civil Rights Act. The employer gets the case dismissed, but the employee appeals. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit finds that the employer will have to face a jury trial.
(As an aside, the Sixth Circuit opinion was written by Raymond Kethledge, who was on President Trump's short list of Supreme Court nominees for the seat now held by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.)
OK, back on topic. What went wrong for this employer?
Among other things, the plaintiff was using a product called "Free Hemp," which he believed might alleviate his pain. He was not smoking pot, he said, and the active ingredient in Free Hemp is THCA, not THC. According to Leafly, "THCA is not intoxicating if ingested. Chemically, it has an additional molecular carboxyl ring, which prevents it from binding to receptors in the brain responsible for feeling high." (I can't vouch for the Leafly website, so believe this at your own risk.) Free Hemp was a legal product in Ohio, so the plaintiff was not breaking the law by using it.
Even if all that's true, the employer argued, we had an honest belief that he was under the influence of marijuana when we fired him, which means we didn't unlawfully discriminate against him or refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation. As already noted, the Sixth Circuit didn't buy what the employer tried to sell.
Scenarios like this are going to become increasingly common as medical marijuana and non-prescription use of legal cannabis products continue to become widespread. For employers who want to protect themselves, here are a few suggestions:
No. 1: Put a policy in place before something happens. While you have the time to think things through, develop a general policy on the use of legal products that might impair work performance or create a safety hazard. Realize that you may need one policy for safety-sensitive jobs and a different (more lenient) one for jobs that are not safety-sensitive. I generally suggest publishing the policy, waiting a month or so, and then enforcing it. The main reason for the month-long wait is that it may take that long for marijuana to get out of employees' systems.
No. 2: If you have a no-cannabis policy in a state where the use of cannabis is legal, then you will not have a problem with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's because the ADA does not protect "current users of illegal drugs," and marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law. It's also legal to comply with other applicable federal laws that prohibit marijuana use, like the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
But if your state has legal cannabis use and its own disability-rights law, beware. You may have to be willing, under state law, to consider allowing employees to use cannabis products as a reasonable accommodation for their disabilities. Also, if you take action against any employees for using legal cannabis products, you could have exposure under your state's "lawful products" statute if your state has one. Approximately 29 states have laws that generally say an employer cannot take action against an employee based on the employee's lawful use of lawful products during non-working hours. The laws were originally intended to protect tobacco users (remember them? I don't), but they could also arguably apply to users of legal cannabis products or legal marijuana.
No. 3: Realize that the "retest" option is pointless when an employee has used legal cannabis products. Many state laws give an employee with a positive drug test the right to have the same sample retested by a different approved laboratory. Retests can be a great way to catch testing and lab errors, but they are not going to help with an admitted cannabis user who tests positive for marijuana. The reason? Of course the retest will come back positive! Your employee has already admitted to using legal cannabis! The lab didn't mess this up. In these circumstances, a retest is a waste of time and money.
No. 4: Instead of a retest, try these:
- Ask the employee to bring in a note from a health care provider. Even if the cannabis use is unprescribed, the HCP might be able to confirm that the employee needs an over-the-counter product for pain management and that cannabis products can be helpful for that purpose. It could even be that the HCP is the one who recommended that the employee use those products. If you can't get a note from an HCP, you might be able to get a receipt from the dispensary.
- Based on safety considerations, engage in the interactive process with the employee and determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made. If the employee can’t safely perform the job using the legal product, then consider placing the employee on a medical leave, Family and Medical Leave, or short-term disability rather than terminating the employee.
- Document the interactive discussions and the reasons for the decision reached.
No. 5: Let NyQuil be your guide. (Not a product endorsement!) Generally, treat legal hemp/marijuana/cannabis products – in states where the use is legal – the same way you treat alcohol, legal prescription medications, and legal over-the-counter medications that are mind-altering. (I recently had a cold, and DayQuil/NyQuil got me through it, but, boy, talk about mind-altering . . .!) If employees in safety-sensitive positions use any of these products, you might have to require them to disclose the use and then place them out of work while they are using, or temporarily reassign them to a non-safety-sensitive position.
Constangy's Cannabis & Employee Substance Abuse practice group helps employers navigate the complex legal landscape surrounding cannabis use in the workplace. Our team stays abreast of evolving state and federal regulations and advises clients on important cannabis-related issues, including employment protections, ADA compliance, drug testing policies, and industry-specific concerns like transportation and logistics. With deep knowledge of the cannabis industry's nuances, we assist employers in adapting to a workforce increasingly utilizing cannabis, ensuring legal compliance and effective management strategies. If you have questions about cannabis-use in your workplace, our team would be happy to help.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010