Weed in the Workplace: What are California Employers' Rights?
With the sale of marijuana for recreational use now legal in California, have employers' rights to keep the substance out of workplace gone up in smoke?
January 09, 2018 at 06:41 PM
4 minute read
New Year—new, easier access to cannabis in California. As of Jan. 1, Californians have been able to purchase recreational marijuana legally under state law. They're free to use it in their home and other private spaces.
But the vibe isn't as easygoing in the Golden State's workplaces. It's still within an employer's legal rights to fire an employee for using marijuana, on or off the job, and to decline to hire someone whose pre-employment drug screening produces positive tests for cannabis.
“The California Supreme Court held that an employer could terminate an employee who was using medical marijuana,” said Kathryn T. McGuigan, of counsel at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius' Los Angeles office. “Here we are in 2018. We do have this new law that has legalized recreational marijuana [but] that doesn't really change the scope for employers in California.”
McGuigan was referring to a 2008 case that's led the conversation around weed in the workplace for nearly 10 years—Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications In the California Supreme Court case, plaintiff Gary Ross alleged RagingWire Telecommunications Inc. discriminated against him for having a disability by firing him after a drug test revealed his use of medical marijuana for back injuries.
California's highest court ruled that employers are not required to accommodate an employee's medicinal marijuana use and that it is legal for employers to fire or not hire someone because of cannabis usage.
And that seems unlikely to change at the moment, as marijuana remains an illegal substance under federal law.
“Even though for the state it's now legal, it's not [legal] federally,” said employment lawyer Traci Hinden of the Law Offices of Traci M. Hinden in San Francisco. “Now with the repeal of the Obama rule [the Cole memo], I see this as a huge problem. It was a problem for people with serious medical issues before. I hear there are lines around the corner for [recreational] cannabis, and now this case is going to be broadly applied.”
The Cole memo, guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2013, de-prioritized cannabis prohibition, meaning states could legalize marijuana without much interference on the federal level. Its repeal means federal prosecutors may go after recreational marijuana users and producers, even in states where weed is legal.
But how current cannabis laws play out in the workplace can vary. Generally, California attorneys explained, employees can't be handing out pot brownies at work or smoking weed in the middle of an office, and employers can drug test before hiring, after an accident or if there's reasonable suspicion of drug use. Those working with heavy machinery and vehicles may face stricter testing or rules about usage on the job.
The attorneys said that employers can implement zero tolerance policies for marijuana usage or leave it up to employees' discretion.
The first option, while possibly less popular with workers, provides a clearer path for employers if an employee seemingly shows up high to work. Employers can legally request reasonable suspicion testing, the attorneys said, and if the test comes back positive, a no-tolerance employer with a clear policy could fire or reprimand the employee accordingly.
An employer with a don't ask, don't tell approach to usage can also fire an employee with a positive test, according to the California lawyers. But because drug tests can't show precisely when cannabis was used, they noted, it's impossible to prove that the test's positive results mean an employee was under the influence at work.
This means that firing is possible, but could be more contested.
“In those circumstances employers would have a much harder time relying on that [drug] test, or shouldn't rely on that test for the sole basis [of a firing],” said Gina Roccanova, principal at Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson and chair of the labor and employment practice group. “You could say the test results, plus the fact that you seemed glass-eyed and I smelled marijuana on you, then there's reasonable case to be made that they violated policy.”
Employers who feel strongly about workers steering clear of cannabis at all times may want to clarify their stance post-legalization, with a clear company policy in place to outline expectations and the repercussions of a positive test, according to McGuigan.
Those taking a less-strict approach, Roccanova said, may want to send an email to remind workers that even if it's legal to recreationally smoke weed on their own time, being high at work is still a no-go.
“Same way you can't be drunk at work, you can't be stoned at work,” Roccanova said.
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 AllGrowth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
5 minute readGoogle Makes Appeal to Overturn Jury Verdict Branding the Play Store as an Illegal Monopoly
5 minute readEight Years On, A&O Shearman’s Fuse Legal Tech Incubator Is Still Evolving
4 minute readChicago Law Requiring Women, Minority Ownership Stake in Casinos Is Unconstitutional, New Suit Claims
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Buyer Beware:Continuity of Coverage in Legal Malpractice Insurance
- 2‘Listen, Listen, Listen’: Some Practice Tips From Judges in the Oakland Federal Courthouse
- 3BCLP Joins Saudi Legal Market with Plans to Open Two Offices
- 4White & Case Crosses $4M in PEP, $3B in Revenue in 'Breakthrough Year'
- 5Thursday Newspaper
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