Work Environments in Medical Marijuana Age: What Employers Can and Cannot Do
The legalization of cannabis in Florida is its infancy. The various Florida laws and regulations regarding cannabis are developing with the passage of time.
May 06, 2020 at 05:45 PM
4 minute read
According to research conducted by the state of Florida, more than a quarter of a million people in Florida are medical marijuana users. As this number continues to rise, employers will need to assess how they wish to maintain their drug-free workplace.
The legalization of cannabis in Florida is its infancy. The various Florida laws and regulations regarding cannabis are developing with the passage of time. Florida's legalized medical cannabis has only been around since 2014. In 2016, the reach of Florida's medical cannabis greatly increased with the voters' approval of Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (amendment 2). The amendment permits individuals to use cannabis for medicinal purposes. From then on, Florida's cannabis industry has been budding.
But as the reach of legalized cannabis in Florida continues to grow, many wonder about some of the broader impacts it will have on the state. Employment is one area which will see an impact from the growth of medical marijuana. In particular, how will employers handle the emergence of employees with a medical marijuana use registry identification card.
Florida employers possess the ability to maintain a drug-free work environment although the extent is dependent upon the policies and procedures of the specific employer. As many employers know, there are several financial incentives to implemental a drug-free work environment. One significant consideration for employers is the cost of insurance and reduced premiums associated with maintaining a drug-free workplace. As you can imagine, with this comes various drug testing to ensure employees are complicit with a drug-free program.
Florida's medical marijuana is governed by Florida Statute 381.986. For those wondering what exactly distinguishes it from recreational (non-medical) marijuana, medical marijuana is dispensed from a medical marijuana treatment center for medical use by a qualified patient. Importantly, Florida's medical marijuana law does not limit the ability of an employer to establish, continue, or enforce a drug-free workplace program or policy. This means that an employer is not required by law to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marijuana.
Thus, employers in Florida can still enforce a drug-free workplace—even with the legalization of medical marijuana. So far, there have been few cases examining Florida's new law in the context of the workplace. Recently, a former city of Miami employee sued the city, alleging discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act arising from his termination for use of medical marijuana after failing a drug test. Ultimately, the litigation went nowhere and the case was disposed of for lack of prosecution.
Nevertheless, employers must be diligent when handling issues regarding medical marijuana and cognizant of what their respective policies and procedures do permit. Also, employers that choose to permit employee medical marijuana use in an otherwise drug-free workplace, must be able to distinguish permitted medical use from other recreational use. Employers willing to work with employees who use medical marijuana must also identify the potential risks and liabilities that may arise should an incident occur as the result of an employee found to be under the influence of medical marijuana.
Lastly, employers should remain mindful of developments with Florida cannabis law moving forward. For example, House Bill 595, titled "Medical Marijuana Employee Protection," seeks to expand upon the protections afforded to employees who are licensed to use medical marijuana, and to prohibit employers from taking adverse employment actions, such as termination or demotion, against those employers. But for now, Florida law permits employers to enforce a drug-free workplace program.
Andrew M. Gordon is a partner and Nicolas R. Bixler and M. Megan Coughlin are associates in the Fort Lauderdale office of Hinshaw & Culbertson.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 2Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 3Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 4UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 5Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250