Cheat Sheet: The in-house lawyer’s guide to marijuana legalization
Employers desires for a drug-free workplace have of late been at odds with the permitted use of medical marijuana in many states, and the employers are largely coming out ahead.
February 12, 2013 at 04:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Employers' desires for a drug-free workplace have of late been at odds with the permitted use of medical marijuana in many states, and the employers are largely coming out ahead. But what happens when states legalize recreational use? In InsideCounsel's February issue, we looked at the questions new marijuana laws have raised for employers, and how in-house counsel should proceed. Here we've summarized what counsel need to know, to set your minds at ease.
I'm just now crawling out from under the rock I call my home. What exactly happened?
Take a moment to adjust. It's basically chaos out here, and marijuana legalization is no exception. It seems pretty simple on the surface—at election time in November 2012, voters in Washington state and Colorado voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.
But marijuana is still illegal under federal law. The Department of Transportation (DOT) said on Dec. 3, 2012, that these state laws would not count as an excuse for a positive drug test for employees in safety-sensitive positions, such as pilots and school bus drivers.
The Department of Justice has yet to say how these new state laws are going to affect its enforcement efforts, but Littler Mendelson Shareholder Nancy Delogu thinks it will continue to enforce federal law in places that sell or dispense marijuana, but leave individuals largely alone.
What does that mean for company drug policies? Should I panic?
Zero-tolerance drug policies should still be fine. So should drug testing programs. The courts have so far upheld employers' rights to enforce drug-free workplaces, even if an employee is legally taking medical marijuana.
“Go ahead and enforce your zero-tolerance drug policies regardless of the reason for marijuana use, whether medical or recreational, without regard to the new state laws,” says Richard Meneghello, a partner at Fisher & Phillips.
However, employers in Arizona, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine should be careful. These states all have laws that require employers to accommodate medical marijuana, but though federal law may preempt those measures, none has yet faced a court test. Unless you want your company to be the test case, tread cautiously.
What about off-duty use?
In Colorado, employers cannot terminate employees for lawful conduct they engage in outside of the workplace during nonworking hours. It's possible that employees could use that to argue that employers can't ban workers from using now-legal recreational marijuana on their own time.
Washington doesn't have an off-duty conduct law. Plaintiffs lawyers in the state, however, are already chomping at the bit to challenge employers. Fisher & Phillips Partner Richard Meneghello says he's already seen a Washington plaintiffs lawyer quoted as saying it would be a “miscarriage of justice” to fire someone for legal recreational marijuana use.
Is there anything I should do right now?
In-house counsel of companies with operations in Colorado and Washington might want to revisit their policies and check the wording. Employers can continue to ban illegal drugs, but to avoid confusion among employees, policies might need to clarify that marijuana is still included.
Littler Mendelson Shareholder Nancy Delogu recommends saying something to the effect that all drugs “made illegal as a matter of federal, state or local law, including marijuana,” are banned.
As for drug-testing policies, employers should make clear that any amount of marijuana in a person's system is unacceptable, as opposed to state Driving While Intoxicated laws, which may consider the presence of a low level of the substance as “unimpaired.”
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyer as Litigant as Late Fees Take Spotlight in Class Action
- 2Burns White Names Conshohocken Litigator as New CEO
- 3Mattel Sued Over 'Wicked' Dolls With Pornographic Website
- 4Brown Rudnick’s Brand and Reputation Group Unfazed After Loss of 6 Prominent Partners and Their Big-Name Clients
- 5Fulton Judge Weighs Whether to Order Fani Willis to Comply With Lawmakers' Subpoenas Over Trump Case
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