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
© 2025 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 AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Commuted by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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