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
Some Oregonians are no doubt breathing clouds of relief with the introduction of Senate Bill 301, the Oregon Legislature’s proposal to protect employees from being fired for personal marijuana use. Employers, on the other hand, may find themselves in a sticky (icky) situation trying to comply with the proposed law, which, at first glance, seems straightforward but would present significant challenges if passed.
Continue Reading Oregon Legislature’s Attempt to Protect Pot Users Poses Challenges to Employers
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-0 decision that Colorado’s “lawful activities statute,” which provides protections to employees who engage in lawful off-duty conduct, only applies to conduct that is lawful under both state and federal law. The Court’s decision in Coats v. Dish Network, which can be accessed here, involved
In this week’s mid-term election on November 4, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia became the latest jurisdictions to pass referendums decriminalizing the recreational possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. They join Colorado and Washington, which took this step in 2012. Oregon’s law becomes effective in July 2015; Alaska’s probably in February 2015.
Each of these laws is slightly different (read the full text here of the measures in Oregon, Alaska, and D.C.). But employers in all these jursidcitions may be wondering about the same question: does this affect my company’s anti-drug policy or drug testing program and if so, how?Continue Reading What Does Alaska’s and Oregon’s Legalization of Marijuana Change for Employers? Answer: Probably Not Much.
There are many sound reasons why employers have zero tolerance policies and engage in drug testing of applicants and/or employees, including customer requirements, government contracting requirements (e.g.,the federal Drug Free Workplace Act), federal or state laws (including DOT requirements for transportation workers), workplace safety, productivity, health and absenteeism, and liability.
Some Washington state
Meghan M. Kelly also contributed to this post.
Alaska has joined the growing list of states that have outlawed the sale or possession of “synthetic cannabinoids.” These so-called designer drugs are sold under trade names like “Spice” and “K2”, and are essentially chemicals sprayed on dried weeds then rolled and smoked like marijuana.
Alaska’s new law,
In a victory for employers, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Washington’s Medical Use of Marijuana Act (“MUMA”) does not protect medical marijuana users from adverse hiring or disciplinary decisions based on an employer’s drug test policy. Click here to download a copy of the decision in Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management. The lawsuit
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
Yesterday the Oregon Supreme Court conclusively ruled that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace, ending years of doubt and confusion on this critical issue. Click here to read the Court’s opinion in Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries.
In Emerald Steel
Earlier this month, Starbucks scored an important procedural victory from the California Court of Appeals, which ruled that a class of employees lacked standing to sue over questions the coffee chain asked on its employment applications about prior marijuana convictions. Click here to read the opinion in Starbucks v. Superior Court.
Despite the apparent