On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2188 into law, which prohibits employers from taking any adverse employment action against an employee in conjunction with an employee’s off-duty marijuana use.
AB 2188 makes it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment” for
Employers that promote workplace safety by ensuring workers are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol after they suffer a workplace injury will soon face greater scrutiny from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). A new OSHA rule that goes into effect August 10, 2016 casts serious doubt on whether employers can lawfully maintain mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing.
OSHA Thinks Mandatory Testing Deters Reporting
The new OSHA rule becomes effective August 10, 2016, though compliance deadlines may vary from state to state (check with your employment counsel to confirm). When the rule becomes effective, employers must have a reporting procedure for workplace injuries that is “reasonable and [will] not deter or discourage employees from reporting” workplace injuries. To which you say, “My business already has that.” Perhaps you do, but if that procedure includes mandatory post-incident drug or alcohol testing, OSHA may no longer consider it to be reasonable. Though OSHA claims that “the [new] rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees,” the Agency also states that “mandating automatic post-injury drug testing [is] a form of adverse action that can discourage reporting.” In other words, OSHA has determined that mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing may be unlawful because it may deter someone from reporting an injury.
Continue Reading OSHA Promotes Workplace Safety by . . . Limiting Drug and Alcohol Testing?
Employers and the courts continue to wrestle with issues involving “zero tolerance” drug testing policies and whether employers must accommodate medical marijuana use by their employees. Marijuana use is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, and therefore does not need to be accommodated under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). However, 15 states currently have
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday held in Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association that an employer’s one-strike drug testing policy for applicants does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The one-strike policy in question stated that the company would never hire any applicant who tested positive on a pre-employment drug screening. All applicants were
Note: On April 1, 2010, the Washington Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeals decision discussed in this entry. A final ruling on the case will be issued by the Washington Supreme Court at a later date.
A Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that Washington’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”)
A school bus driver who was demoted after his "shy bladder syndrome" left him unable to comply with his employer’s drug testing procedures may proceed with claims under the Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling from a Tennessee federal court. Click here to read the full opinion in Melman v. Metropolitan Government
Effective August 25, 2008, the Department of Transportation will require transportation workers who previously tested positive for prohibited drugs to give urine specimens while being watched by specimen collectors. The new regulations will apply to workers in safety-sensitive positions in the aviation, motor carrier, rail, transit, maritime, and pipeline industries.
Under current regulations, only workers suspected