State Regulations Update

It’s Going to Be a Long, Strange Trip:

What Employers Need to Know About
Medical-Marijuana Laws

Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Although clouds of controversy still hang in the air, the legaliza-

tion of marijuana for medical purposes is now a reality in many
states. Currently, 14 states have enacted laws permitting the use
of marijuana on the recommendation or prescription of a doctor,
and others are considering similar legislation. Although posses-
sion of marijuana remains unlawful under federal law, in the fall
of 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it
would no longer focus efforts or resources toward the prosecution
of medical-marijuana users. Meanwhile, employers are scratching
their heads and asking questions. What obligations do employers
have to accommodate employee use of medical marijuana in and
out of the workplace? Do state laws prevent employers from ter-
minating an employee who fails a drug test due to the use of
medical marijuana? And what can employers do to minimize legal
risks while maintaining a drug-free workplace?
Although most states still ban the use of marijuana in any sit-
uation, employers would be wise to familiarize themselves with
the growing number of state laws that do allow the use of medi-
cal marijuana and the various protections offered to individuals
under those laws. For employers in many states, this may also be
the time to consider revisions to policies that address such topics
as drug testing and accommodation of employees with disabili-
ties. This article will provide an overview of legislation and case
law regarding state-sanctioned use of medical marijuana, the

©2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 65

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ert.20311
Employment Relations Today

implications those laws have for employers, and recommendations for action
in light of the new reality that is medical marijuana.

MEDICAL-MARIJUANA LAWS

Currently, federal law prohibits the use of marijuana for any purpose. In
1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which divides
illicit and prescription drugs into five levels, or “schedules.”1 Each schedule
contains its own set of restrictions and allowances based on the federal gov-
ernment’s assessment of each drug’s medicinal properties and potential for
abuse. Under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning it has no
recognized medical purpose and cannot be prescribed by physicians. Anyone
prescribing, using, cultivating, or possessing marijuana can be punished
under federal law. Because federal law preempts conflicting state law, this is
true even in those states that have enacted statutes permitting the use of
marijuana for medical purposes.
Practically speaking, however, it has become rare for federal authorities
to pursue prosecution of medical-marijuana users. In October 2009, the U.S.
Department of Justice issued formal guidelines to federal prosecutors
encouraging them to stop focusing enforcement efforts and expending fed-
eral resources on medical-marijuana users and caregivers who comply with
relevant state laws.2 Effectively, DOJ’s decision has largely left the issue of
the legality of medical-marijuana usage in the hands of the states.
Although the majority of states do not recognize marijuana as having
medicinal value and do not protect users from state prosecution, 14 states
have enacted laws that protect from state prosecution persons who pre-
scribe, possess, cultivate, or use marijuana for medical reasons: Alaska, Cali-
fornia, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey,
New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.3

THE FEATURES OF EXISTING MEDICAL-MARIJUANA LAWS

In general, there is much uniformity in the protections granted and require-

ments created by these state laws. These similarities, as well as the impor-
tant differences that exist between the laws, are described in the sections
that follow.

Requirements for Coverage

The two most common requirements for coverage under existing medical-
marijuana statutes are (1) diagnosis of a qualifying debilitating illness and
(2) registration with the state. The definitions of “debilitating” illness or

66 Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2010

condition, as well as the registration processes, are largely consistent

between states. Throughout this article, we refer to individuals who qualify
for coverage under these laws as “qualified patients.”
Most states with medical-marijuana laws require that a person be suffer-
ing from a “debilitating” illness or medical condition before the individual
can qualify for medical-marijuana use. For example, Alaska defines a debili-
tating medical condition as cancer, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and any chronic
or debilitating disease or treatment for such disease that produces cachexia,4
severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, or persistent muscle spasms, and for
which the medical use of marijuana, in the professional opinion of the
patient’s physician, may alleviate the patient’s condition.5 Colorado, Hawaii,
and Montana use this same definition. Other states include such medical
conditions as Hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn’s dis-
ease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy in their definitions
of “debilitating” diseases.6
The second common requirement for coverage is completion of a registra-
tion process. Typically, the registration process includes application to a state
board or department, placement on a confidential registry, and issuance of
an identification card. For example, Montana’s medical-marijuana law
requires an individual to submit a written certification from a physician stat-
ing that the person has a debilitating medical condition and that the poten-
tial benefits of marijuana use would likely outweigh the health risks for the
patient.7 Additionally, patients must submit identification information for
themselves, their physicians, and their primary caregivers. Montana main-
tains a confidential list of qualified patients and issues identification cards to
all who qualify.
California is the one exception to the registration processes described.
There, the law creates a voluntary identification-card system for individuals
who choose to register with the state.8 Although the law provides protection
from prosecution for state drug offenses to all qualified patients, those who
register and obtain an identification card also gain protection from arrest for
the possession, cultivation, or use of marijuana—unless there is reasonable
cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsi-
fied.9 Without an identification card, qualified patients in California retain
protection against state prosecution but remain subject to arrest for sus-
pected violations of marijuana laws.

Restrictions and Limitations

Even in the states that permit the use of medical marijuana, the rights of use
and possession granted to qualified patients are not unlimited. In general,

State Regulations Update 67

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Employment Relations Today

these states have established restrictions and limits relating to the use of
medical marijuana that fall into three categories: (1) the places marijuana
may not be used; (2) the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may pos-
sess; and (3) health insurance reimbursement for the cost of medical mari-
juana.

Places Marijuana Use Is Restricted

The four most common places that marijuana use is limited are public
spaces, correctional facilities, schools, and places of employment. All states
with medical-marijuana laws prohibit or limit in some way the use of mari-
juana in public places. Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New Mex-
ico, and Washington restrict the use of marijuana in any public place.10 Col-
orado, Nevada, and Oregon apply the restriction to include any place in
plain view of the general public.11 Other states prohibit marijuana use only
in specified public areas. California, for example, prohibits the use of mari-
juana in any place where smoking is prohibited or within 1,000 feet of a
recreation or youth center, unless within a place of residence.12 Similarly,
Alaska prohibits marijuana usage on or within 500 feet of recreation or
youth centers. Montana and Vermont restrict the use of marijuana in public
parks, public beaches, public recreation centers, and youth centers. New Jer-
sey bans marijuana usage from public parks, public beaches, recreation cen-
ters, and any place smoking is prohibited pursuant to New Jersey law.
With the exception of Colorado, Hawaii, and New Mexico, every state
with a medical-marijuana law restricts the use of marijuana in correctional
facilities. The use of marijuana on or near school grounds is prohibited in
every state with a medical-marijuana law except Colorado, Nevada, and Ore-
gon.13 Most states also expressly prohibit medical-marijuana usage on school
buses and in motor vehicles while they are being operated.14

Possession Limits

Each state with a medical-marijuana statute also places some restriction on

the amount of marijuana a qualified patient is allowed to possess. Because
these laws typically allow qualified patients to grow marijuana at home for
their own use, the restrictions often address not only the quantity of usable
marijuana a patient may have in his or her possession, but also the number
of plants he or she may cultivate at one time. Hawaii, for example, limits
possession to an “adequate supply,” defined as an amount sufficient to
assure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana, “not to exceed three
mature marijuana plants, four immature marijuana plants, and one
ounce of usable marijuana per each mature plant.”15 In other states with

68 Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2010

medical-marijuana laws, the legal-possession limits range from 1 to 24

ounces of usable marijuana, and/or from 6 to 15 marijuana plants.16 In con-
trast, California does not set a specific limit on the amount of usable mari-
juana or plants that may be possessed. Instead, California’s statute provides
that a qualified patient may possess any amount of marijuana “reasonably
necessary for [the patient’s] current medical condition.”17

Health Insurance Reimbursement

Every medical-marijuana statute except New Mexico’s releases insurance

companies from reimbursing costs associated with medical-marijuana use.
Rhode Island’s law is a representative example and states that nothing in the
statute “shall be construed to require a government medical assistance pro-
gram or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated
with the medical use of marijuana.”18

MEDICAL-MARIJUANA USE AND EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

The critical question in states that permit the use of marijuana for medical
purposes is how far must employers go to accommodate such use. Because
many of these statutes are only recently enacted, few courts have addressed
the application of these laws in the employment context. However, as dis-
cussed in this section, the developing case law is decidedly pro-employer.
In considering the interplay between state laws addressing medical-
marijuana usage and employers’ obligations to their employees who use
medical marijuana, it is helpful to divide potential issues into two cate-
gories: (1) the protected status, if any, of employees who are qualified
patients and (2) accommodation of the use of medical marijuana by employ-
ees. This section discusses both of these issues and concludes with recom-
mendations to employers in light of recent case decisions.

Protected Status of Qualified Patient Employees

The most obvious question that employers will ask regarding the medical-
marijuana issue is this: Can I lawfully terminate or refuse to hire someone
solely because they use medical marijuana? The brief answer to the question
is this: In California, Oregon, Montana, and Washington, the courts have
ruled that employers may terminate employees because they are using medi-
cal marijuana. In contrast, statutes in Maine and Rhode Island forbid
employers from refusing to employ individuals based on their status as a
qualified patient.19 In the remaining states, the answer is less clear. These
answers are explained in more detail in the paragraphs that follow.

State Regulations Update 69

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Employment Relations Today

At the outset, it may be useful to think of an individual’s status as a qual-

ified patient as being analogous to other “protected” classes created by fed-
eral and state antidiscrimination laws, (e.g., those defined by race, gender,
age, or disability). Of course, these laws generally forbid employers from
taking any adverse actions against an employee because the employee is a
member of a protected class. The question in the medical-marijuana context
then becomes whether the state law forbids employers from terminating,
disciplining, or refusing to hire individuals solely because of their status as
medical-marijuana users. As discussed in this section, the decisions of the
California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington courts can be read as stating
that qualified patients do not have protected status under the law.
In Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., the California Supreme
Court held that although the state had decriminalized the use of marijuana
for medical purposes, “nothing in the text or history of the [law] suggests the
voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations
of employers and employees.”20 At the recommendation of his physician, the
plaintiff in this case used marijuana to treat a condition of constant pain.
After two years of such use, the plaintiff was offered employment and drug-
tested, per company policy, prior to beginning work. After the plaintiff com-
menced employment, the employer received the drug-test results, which
indicated marijuana use. Although the plaintiff provided a copy of his physi-
cian’s recommendation for marijuana use, he was fired for failing the drug
test. As noted, the California Supreme Court held the plaintiff had no cause
of action against his employer for wrongful discharge.
The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Johnson v.
Columbia Falls Aluminum Co.21 The plaintiff in Johnson also used marijuana
to treat constant pain on the approval of his physician. Although he had
never received a poor performance evaluation and used marijuana only at
home, the plaintiff was terminated after he failed a drug test. The Montana
Supreme Court reasoned that because the medical-marijuana statute pro-
tected qualified patients only from criminal and civil penalties and explicitly
absolved employers of the duty to accommodate the medical use of mari-
juana in the workplace, the statute did not create a private right of action
against an employer for wrongful discharge. Washington’s Court of Appeals
reached the same conclusion in Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt.
(Colorado), LLC.22
The most recent decision on this topic was issued this year by the Oregon
Supreme Court in Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Indus-
tries.23 In this case, the plaintiff suffered from a variety of afflictions that
substantially limited his ability to eat and began using marijuana, without a
prescription, to treat his condition. Eventually, he obtained a prescription and
registered with the state in compliance with the Oregon Medical Marijuana

70 Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2010

Act. In January 2003, the plaintiff began work at a steel manufacturer on a

temporary basis and continued to use marijuana up to three times per day
outside the workplace. When the employer considered hiring him on a per-
manent basis, the plaintiff revealed his marijuana use in anticipation of a
required drug test. His employer fired him a week later on the basis of his
use of medical marijuana, and the plaintiff brought suit. In upholding the
lawfulness of the termination, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the fed-
eral CSA preempted the provision in Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Act that
affirmatively authorized the use of medical marijuana.24 As such, the court
concluded that the plaintiff’s use of medical marijuana was illegal under
federal law, and therefore, his employer could terminate him on that basis.
In contrast to these decisions, Maine and Rhode Island expressly forbid
employers from refusing to “employ . . . or otherwise penalize a person
solely for that person’s status as a registered qualifying patient.”25 Although
there is currently no case law addressing these provisions, a plain reading
of the statutes indicates that employers violate the law if they base a decision
to terminate or refuse to hire individuals solely because they are registered
users of medical marijuana. It should be noted, however, that Maine’s law
does not expressly prohibit employers from refusing to employ a qualified
patient where to do so would cause the employer to violate federal law or
lose a federal contract or funding. This exception could be relevant in con-
nection with employment of persons subject to drug testing under U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations26 and for federal contractors sub-
ject to the Drug-Free Workplace Act.27
The laws of the remaining states are silent as to whether qualified
patients have protected status in employment. In this respect, they resemble
the laws of California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, where the courts
have ruled that this silence indicates that the law was not intended to pro-
vide protection in the employment context. However, it is conceivable that
courts in these states could decide that a termination based on an employee’s
use of medical marijuana constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of
these statutes’ express public policy allowing medical-marijuana use. Thus,
until the courts in these states have answered this question directly, employ-
ers should be aware that termination of employees for the lawful use of
medical marijuana is not without risk.

Accommodation of Marijuana Use by Employees

Employers may be relieved to know that all 14 states with medical-mari-

juana laws restrict the right of qualified patients to use medical marijuana
while at work. In Hawaii, New Mexico, and Vermont, the laws provide that
the general authorization to use marijuana for medical purposes does not

State Regulations Update 71

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Employment Relations Today

extend to the patient’s place of employment.28 In the remaining 11 states,

the laws expressly state that employers are not required to “accommodate”
the use of marijuana for medical purposes in the workplace.29 Where, as in
New Jersey, “medical use of marijuana” is defined broadly to include the
acquisition, possession, and transport of marijuana, the statute indicates that
employers may prohibit a qualified patient not only from consuming mari-
juana in the workplace, but also from possessing it while on the job.30
As discussed previously, Maine and Rhode Island provide certain pro-
tected status to qualified patients for the purposes of employment. Never-
theless, even in those states, the law does not require employers to permit
qualified patients to ingest marijuana while at work or work while under
the influence of marijuana.31 In Rhode Island, the law provides that quali-
fied patients “shall not be considered under the influence solely for having
marijuana metabolites in [their] system.”32 Thus, it appears that, in Maine
and Rhode Island, medical-marijuana use away from the workplace would
not jeopardize the protected employment status of qualified patients who
did not come to work “under the influence.” In contrast, courts in other
states where the use of medical marijuana is authorized have expressly held
that employers need not permit the use of medical marijuana away from the
workplace as an accommodation for an employee’s disabling condition. In
each of the cases discussed, employers were not required to deviate from
their existing drug-free workplace policies and make an exception for quali-
fied patients who tested positive for marijuana.33 These decisions suggest
that employers may continue to enforce their drug-free workplace policies
whether or not their state authorizes the use of medical marijuana.
Nevertheless, employers should be thoughtful when taking adverse actions
against employees who use medical marijuana. Employers should be aware
that although illegal drug use is not protected under the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act and marijuana remains illegal under federal law, it is safe to
assume that an employee who is a qualified patient might also be considered
to have a disability under the ADA, given the serious health conditions for
which medical marijuana is often prescribed. In the absence of a positive
drug test, adverse employment actions carry the risk that an affected
employee might claim that the action was taken because of his or her disabil-
ity status, rather than the use of medical marijuana. Employers should ensure
that documentation of their decisions clearly shows that the action was taken
based on the employee’s marijuana use or other nondiscriminatory criteria.

Recommended Actions

In light of the existence of medical-marijuana laws, employers should con-

sider whether their policies, particularly those addressing drug testing,

72 Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2010

discrimination, and accommodation of disabilities, reflect the current state

of the law, as well as their own view of medical marijuana use by their
employees. It seems likely, given concerns about safety, that employers who
currently test employees and job applicants for drug use will take a restric-
tive view of medical-marijuana use. However, there may be employers who
wish to accommodate the use of medical marijuana, at least away from the
workplace, by qualified patients they employ. Employers wishing to do so
should carefully consider whether such an accommodation conflicts with
any federal obligations to maintain a drug-free workplace. In either case,
employers should ensure that their policies are consistent with both state
law and any federal obligations to which they may be subject. Such policies
should specifically address such issues as (1) whether a positive drug-test
result for marijuana usage will disqualify a qualified patient for employ-
ment; (2) whether the company views medical marijuana as a potential rea-
sonable accommodation; and (3) whether the company permits or prohibits
employees from possessing medical marijuana on company property or in
company vehicles.

CONCLUSION

Although the federal government and the majority of states currently ban all
use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana, a growing number of states
have adopted laws providing some protection for individuals who use mari-
juana for medical purposes. No state currently requires that employers
accommodate the use of marijuana in the workplace, and only Maine and
Rhode Island protect employees from termination based on their status as
registered users of medical marijuana. But the future is still hazy, and with
many states considering passage of medical-marijuana laws, employers are
well advised to review their policies on drug testing and accommodation
and to stay alert for coming developments regarding employees’ rights to
use medical marijuana.

NOTES

1. 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904 (1970).

2. See Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys, October 19, 2009, available at
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192.
3. Medical Uses of Marijuana for Persons Suffering from Debilitating Medical Conditions Act, Alaska
Stat. §§ 17.37.010 to .080 (1998); Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§
11362.7 to .83 (2004); Colo. Const. art. 18, § 14 (2000); Medical Use of Marijuana Act, Haw. Rev. Stat.
§§ 329-121 to 128 (2000); Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 2421 to
2430-A (2009); Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.26421 to .26430 (2008);

State Regulations Update 73

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Employment Relations Today

Medical Marijuana Act, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 50-46-101 to 210 (2004); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 453A.010 to
.810 (2001); New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 24:6I-1 to 16
(2010); Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act, N.M. Stat. §§ 26-2B-1 to 7 (2007); Oregon Medical
Marijuana Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 475.300 to .346 (1999); The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C.
Slater Medical Marijuana Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 21-28.6-1 to 12 (2005); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, §§ 4472
to 4474d (2007); and Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 69.51A.005
to .902 (1998).
4. Cachexia is a physical wasting syndrome, characterized by weight loss, muscle atrophy, weakness,
and fatigue, that often accompanies chronic diseases.
5. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 17.37.070(4).
6. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-3; Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(3)(B); N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-5(A)(3)(d);
Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.060.
7. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 50-46-102, 103.
8. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.
9. People v. Kelly, 222 P.3d 186, 189 (Cal. 2010).
10. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-7; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-122(2); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §2426(1)(C)(2);
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(3)(B); N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-5(A)(3)(d); Wash. Rev. Code §
69.51A.060.
11. Colo. Const. art. 18, § 1 (2000); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.300 (2001); Or. Rev. Stat. § 175.316 (1999).
12. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.79.
13. E.g., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 4474c (2007).
14. E.g., Alaska Stat. § 17.37.040 (1998); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.79.
15. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-121.
16. E.g., Alaska Stat. § 17.37.040 (limiting possession amount to one ounce of marijuana in usable form
and six marijuana plants, with no more than three mature plants producing usable marijuana at any
one time); Wash. Rev. Code § 246-75-010 (2008) (person allowed to possess six-month supply, defining
statutory six-month supply as meaning no more than twenty-four ounces of usable marijuana and fif-
teen marijuana plants).
17. See People v. Kelly, 222 P.3d 186, 210 (Cal. 2010) (invalidating specific limits set by the state’s Medi-
cal Marijuana Program as inconsistent with the affirmative defense provided under the California
Compassionate Use Act).
18. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-7 (2005).
19. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 2423-E (2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-4.
20. 174 P.3d 200, 205 (Cal. 2008).
21. No. DA 08-0358, 2009 WL 865308, at *2 (Mont. Mar. 31, 2009).
22. 216 P.3d 1055, 1058 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (upholding rescission of a conditional offer of employment
to a qualified patient who failed a drug test and holding that the state law authorizing the use of
medical marijuana did not create an implied right of action against employers for wrongful discharge
or an obligation for employers to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana).
23. 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010)
24. Despite this decision, it appears that medical-marijuana use remains decriminalized under the Ore-
gon statute. The court noted that the law provides an exemption from state prosecution for use of

74 Richard Haygood, Robert Hensley, and Katharine Field

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2010

medical marijuana in a separate section of the statute. The court stated that its holding was limited to
the statute’s authorization provision and stated: “[W]e do not hold that the Controlled Substances Act
preempts provisions of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act that exempt the possession, manufacture,
or distribution of medical marijuana from state criminal liability.”
25. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 2423-E (2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-4 (2005).
26. U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require certain commercial motor vehicle operators to
be tested for alcohol and drugs, and prohibit operators who test positive for certain drugs, including
marijuana, from performing safety-sensitive functions, including operating or repairing a motor vehi-
cle. See 40 C.F.R. 40.1 et seq.; 49 C.F.R. 655.4.
27. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 200-690, requires businesses with a federal con-
tract worth over $100,000 to meet certain requirements designed to keep the workplace free of illegal
drugs. Specifically, covered contractors must agree to (1) publish a statement and notify employees in
writing that illegal drugs are prohibited in the workplace; (2) publish and notify employees of the
action the contractor will take against violators of the drug-prohibition policy; (3) establish a drug-
free awareness program for employees; (4) notify employees that compliance with the drug prohibi-
tion is a condition of employment, and that employees must notify the contractor of any violation of
federal or state drug abuse statutes occurring in the workplace within five days of conviction;
(5) notify the government contracting agency within 10 days of receipt of an employee conviction
notice; (6) take appropriate personnel action within 30 days of receipt of an employee conviction
notice; (7) require that the convicted employee participate in an approved drug abuse assistance or
rehabilitation program; and (8) make a good-faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through
the implementation of these requirements.
28. E.g., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-122 (2000); N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-5 (2007); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 4474c
(2010). It should be noted that the New Mexico and Vermont statutes state only that the patient will
not be protected against criminal or civil penalties for the use of marijuana in the workplace.
29. E.g., Alaska Stat. § 17.37.040 (1998).
30. N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 24:6I-1 (2010).
31. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 2426; R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-7.
32. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-7.
33. See Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc., 230 P.3d at 518 (upholding termination of qualified patient for
violation of company drug-free workplace policy); Ragingwire Telecomm., Inc., 174 P.3d at 205
(upholding termination of qualified patient who failed a company drug test).

Richard Haygood is a partner in Kilpatrick Stockton LLP’s Raleigh,

North Carolina, office and may be reached at rhaygood@kilpatrickstockton
.com. Robert Hensley is an associate in the firm’s Raleigh office and
may be reached at rhensley@kilpatrickstockton.com. Katharine Field is
an associate in the firm’s Atlanta office and may be reached at kfield@
kilpatrickstockton.com. Special thanks to Elizabeth Winters, a second-
year law student at Wake Forest University, for her research assistance.

State Regulations Update 75

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert