Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing- related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based upon either (i) their status as a medical marijuana cardholder; (ii) or a patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired on the employment premises or during work hours.

Further, its law specifies that a patient is not “under the influence” of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.

Finally, there is a safety-sensitive position exception to Arizona’s medical marijuana laws, allowing an employer to restrict a safety-sensitive position from a medical marijuana patient, although a recent tentative ruling from the District of Arizona struck down this AAMA exception on Constitutional grounds. The case ultimately settled before the ruling was finalized, so there is some uncertainty here.

Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 98, section 3 provides that an employer shall not discriminate against an applicant or employee based upon the individual’s past or present status as a qualifying patient or designated caregiver. No protections, however, for on-site marijuana use or impairment at work.

However, an employee or application shall not have a cause of action based upon an employer’s (i) establishment and implementation of a substance abuse or drug-free workplace policy; (ii) acting on their good faith belief that a qualifying patient possessed/used marijuana on the premises of the employer or during work hours; or was under the influence of marijuana while on the premises of the employer or during the hours of employment, provided that a positive test result for marijuana alone cannot be the sole basis for that good faith belief; or (iii) excluding a qualifying patient from being employed or performing in a safety-sensitive position based on the employer’s good faith belief that the qualifying patient was engaged in the current use of marijuana.

However, a positive test alone cannot be the sole basis for an employer’s good faith belief that an employee was under the influence of marijuana while on the premises of the employer or during work hours.

Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based on either (1) the person’s status as a cardholder or (2) a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed, or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.

No employer may be penalized or denied any benefit under state law for enrolling, leasing to, or employing a cardholder.

No employer may penalize a person solely for his or her status as a registered qualifying patient, unless failing to do so would put the employer in violation of federal law or unless failing to do so would cause it to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or rules.

An employer is not prohibited from adopting reasonable regulations concerning the consumption, storage, or timekeeping requirements for qualifying patients related to the use of medical cannabis.

An employer is not prohibited from enforcing a policy concerning drug testing, zero-tolerance, or a drug-free workplace provided the policy is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

An employer is not limited from disciplining a registered qualifying patient for violating a workplace drug policy.

An employer can discipline an employee for failing a drug test if failing to do so would put the employer in violation of federal law or cause it to lose a federal contract or funding.

An employer may consider an employee to be impaired or under the influence of cannabis if the employer has a good faith belief that an employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position, including symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of the employee or others, or involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or property; disruption of a production or manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others. If an employer elects to discipline an employee on the basis that the employee is under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the employer must afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination.

No state employer shall subject an employee or prospective employee to negative employment consequences based solely on a positive marijuana test if she/he has been clinically diagnosed as suffering from a debilitating medical condition and a licensed physician has recommended marijuana for therapeutic use by the employee. R.S. 49:1016(A).

However, R.S. 49:1016(A) shall not be construed as prohibiting employer from imposing negative employment consequences if employee is impaired by marijuana on the premises of the employer or during work hours or an employee’s principal responsibility is to operate or maintain a state vehicle or supervise an employee who drives or maintains a state vehicle.

Further, this R.S. 49:1016(A) does not apply to law enforcement, firefighters, or other public safety officials.

Massachusetts has a bill (Bill H.4699) not yet enacted which prohibits employment discrimination based on the legal use of cannabis (introduced on May 30, 2024).

However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did rule in 2017 that employees in Massachusetts with legal prescription for medical marijuana can sue their employers for disability discrimination if the employee is fired solely on the basis of using the drug.

Further, employers are not required to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this law in the workplace and can still enact and enforce workplace policies restricting the consumption of marijuana by employees (M.G.L. c. 94G § 2(e)).

Unless required by state or federal law, employers cannot:

1. Request or require job applicants to submit to cannabis testing solely to determine the presence or absence of cannabis as a condition of employment.
2. Refuse to hire a job applicant solely because they tested positive for cannabis.

Cannabis testing prohibitions do not apply to:

1. Safety-sensitive, peace officer, or firefighter positions.
2. Positions requiring face-to-face contact with children, vulnerable adults, and certain health care patients.
3. Positions requiring commercial driver’s licenses or motor vehicle operation subject to drug testing.
4. Positions funded by a federal grant; or required by state or federal law to test for cannabis (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 181.951).

Employers may discipline, discharge, or take other adverse action against employees for Authorized Cannabis Product use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer while working, on employer premises, or operating employer equipment if: (1) Due to consumption, the employee does not possess that clearness of intellect and self-control they otherwise would have. (2) Cannabis testing verifies the presence of Authorized Cannabis Product after a confirmatory test. (3) The employer’s written policy for cannabis use provides for adverse action. (4) Required by state or federal law. (5) Failure to do so would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law. (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 181.953).

Missouri House Bill 2674 prevents discrimination of valid medical marijuana license holders, unless their cannabis use is during/at work. They cannot refuse to hire, terminate, or discipline valid medical license holders for their off-site/after-hours use.

1. Require an employer to permit or accommodate marijuana use or possession in any workplace or on the employer’s property.
2. Prevent an employer from disciplining an employee for working while under the influence of marijuana.
3. Prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person because that person was working while under the influence of marijuana.

First, the employment protections do not apply to employers that could lose monetary or licensing-related benefits under federal law or federal regulations for hiring or employing individuals who use marijuana or test positive for marijuana use. Second, the protections in SB 406 do not apply to employees who work in a “safety-sensitive position,” defined as “a position in which performance by a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol would constitute an immediate or direct threat of injury or death to that person or another.”

63 O.S. § 427.8 (H)-(I)

• Unless it is otherwise required by federal law or to obtain federal funding, employers cannot discipline, fire or refuse to hire someone solely because they have an Oklahoma medical marijuana patient license.
• Employers do NOT have to allow possession or use of medical marijuana products at work.
• Employers may not discipline, fire or refuse to hire a licensed Oklahoma medical marijuana patient solely because of a positive test for marijuana—unless they have safety-sensitive job duties or possess, consume or are under the influence of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products at work.

Unity Bill (Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Use and Patient Protection Act) - allows employers to prohibit medical marijuana use by employees in safety-sensitive positions.

The Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act states that employers cannot discriminate against employees for consuming marijuana off-the-clock, as long as: (1) You are a properly registered medical marijuana patient in the state of Pennsylvania; and (2) Your job’s responsibilities are not deemed life-threatening or dangerous

As of January 2022, Philadelphia employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies are prohibited from requiring job applicants to submit to a marijuana drug test as a condition of employment. These drug tests are not considered an “unlawful employment practice.” The prohibition does not apply to employees in safety-sensitive positions, positions requiring operation of heavy machinery, positions involved in the supervision care of children, medical patients, or vulnerable persons, and any positions where the employee may significantly impact the health and/or safety of other employees or members of the public. Philadelphia Code Chapter 9-4700.

In 2020, the voters of South Dakota passed Initiated Measure 26 and approved medical cannabis.

SB 12 was passed and signed by the governor on 2/15/24. It amended the 2020 laws and roll backed protection for medical users. Effective July 1, 2024.

34-20G-22. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a registered qualifying patient who uses cannabis for a medical purpose must be afforded the same rights under state and local law, as the person would be afforded if the person were solely prescribed a pharmaceutical medication, as it pertains to:

1. Any interaction with a person’s employer;
2. Drug testing by a person’s employer; or
3. Drug testing required by any state or local law, agency, or government official.

Nothing in this section prohibits adverse employment action, based solely on a positive test result for cannabis metabolites, if the person is employed in a safety-sensitive job.

Nothing in this section prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a person, based solely on a positive test result for cannabis metabolites, if the person is seeking employment in a safety-sensitive job.

South Dakota bill SB12 was signed into law in Feb. 2024, allowing employers to take action against employees who test positive for THC if they work in a safety-sensitive position or potentially new employees going through the pre-employment process.

Vermont’s laws do not permit employers to discriminate against disabled applicants or employees who use medical marijuana outside of work to treat their disability.

Effective July 1, 2021, Virginia law prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, or discriminating against an employee for lawful use of cannabis oil based on a valid written certification. Registered medical practitioners can issue written certifications for cannabis oil and cannabis products to patients suffering from a diagnosed condition or disease that would benefit from its use.

Employers may not discharge, threaten, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee solely based on the employee’s status as a person certified to use medical cannabis.