cannabis employment law – Cannabis Industry

By: Kathleen O’Malley and Danielle Dwyer

Recently, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced a Finding of Probable Cause by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) against Prince Telecom LLC (Prince) for declining to hire a medical marijuana user as a cable installation technician. The DCR found the job applicant was subject to disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The basis for the DCR’s determination was Prince’s rescission of a job offer after the applicant, a medical marijuana user, tested positive for cannabis in connection with a pre-employment drug screen.

Prince, a company that constructs and maintains telecommunications and cable systems, offered a technician job to the applicant pending a drug test. The applicant informed the company that he had a medical marijuana prescription and used marijuana to treat a disability. When the applicant tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer. Prince maintained that it could not provide the applicant with any accommodation given the safety-sensitive nature of the job duties of the position (such as, driving company vehicles, operating machinery, working with electrical wires, climbing ladders and lifting 50 pounds or more). According the DCR, Prince assumed that hiring a medical marijuana user to perform such tasks would expose the company to “enormous” liability.

The DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause because Prince did not ask the applicant for additional information about the nature of his disability; how often and what time of day the applicant used marijuana; and what effect, if any, his medical marijuana use might have on him during work hours. By failing to initiate discussions of that nature with the applicant, the DCR concluded that Prince did not meet its obligation to engage in the interactive process. Under the LAD, employers have an affirmative duty to consider reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees. Broadly speaking, this means an employer should have a dialogue with a disabled applicant or employee and should ask questions to determine whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Once the employer has sufficient information from the individual and/or the individual’s healthcare provider about the disability and any proposed accommodations, the employer can evaluate whether it is able to offer a reasonable accommodation without posing an undue burden on the company. Employers who fail to engage in this interactive process violate the LAD—which is exactly what the DCR has accused Prince of doing.

While the LAD protects individuals with disabilities, it is also worth noting that both medical and adult marijuana use are legal in New Jersey and the state has enacted protections for the use of marijuana. The Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (CUMCA) prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant (e.g., terminating or refusing to hire) based on the fact that the employee is registered as a medical marijuana user. The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects adult use of marijuana and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions due solely to a positive drug test for cannabis. CREAMMA also has specific and stringent protocols with respect to drug testing in the workplace. Because CREAMMA went into law after Prince rescinded the applicant’s job offer, the DCR did not review Prince’s conduct to determine whether it violated that statute as well.

Notably, the DCR did not find that Prince had to accommodate the applicant’s use of marijuana in workplace or that it had an obligation to hire him. The agency found that Prince had an obligation to engage in the interactive process—to gather information sufficient to consider whether it could have reasonably accommodated the applicant’s disability. If Prince had learned the applicant used medical marijuana after work hours and would not be impaired or under the influence when reporting for duty, Prince may have been able to reasonably accommodate the applicant’s disability. The laws in New Jersey are clear that employers have a right to maintain a drug-free workplace and do not have to accommodate use of medical marijuana in the workplace or during work hours. Based on the DCR’s finding, Prince’s error was that it made too hasty a decision and did not gather any information from the applicant to determine whether it could have accommodated his disability.

Of note, a Finding of Probable Cause is not a final determination on the merits. It means the DCR determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings against Prince. The parties will now have the opportunity to resolve the case voluntarily through conciliation. If the parties cannot resolve the matter, the case will move to the Office of Administrative Law or the Superior Court for further adjudication.

By Eric Ruden, Duane Morris LLP

On June 5, 2019, Nevada’s Governor, Steve Sisolak, signed a bill into law banning pre-employment testing from marijuana. Nevada becomes the first state to pass such a ban and follows New York City’s similar ban passed in April 2019, beginning a trend that surely will expand to other jurisdictions.

Under the new law, Nevada employers are prohibited from failing or refusing to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a drug test and the results of the screening indicate the presence of marijuana. The law provides exceptions for firefighters, emergency medical technicians, employees operating a motor vehicle for which federal or state law requires drug testing, or if the position could adversely affect the safety of others. Notably, the law does not prohibit an employer from testing current employees for marijuana.

The law additionally provides that employees who are required to submit to a screening test within the first 30 days of employment have a right to submit to an additional screening test, at the employee’s own expense, to rebut the results of the initial screening. Employers are required to accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of the second screening test.

The law becomes effective on January 1, 2020. Nevada employers should review their drug testing policies prior to the law’s effective date and employers nationwide should be prepared for similar bans to follow this growing trend.