Royal

Medical Marijuana and the Workplace

Apr 24, 2023

The landscape surrounding the use of marijuana is ever changing as of late. Each state currently has different laws regarding the use of medical and recreational marijuana. Although your state may have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, it remains illegal at the Federal level. This poses a challenge for employers, especially those with locations and employees in separate states.


Today, employers are permitted to make rules prohibiting drug and alcohol use in the workplace. Employers do not have to tolerate on-site drug and alcohol use in general. When it comes to off-site use, there are limited accommodations that are required to be granted for alcohol and drug use in relation to disabilities. Off-site medical marijuana use is one of those exceptions.


In Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that an employee who uses medical marijuana may claim handicap discrimination against an employer for failing to waive mandatory drug testing for marijuana use absent an undue hardship to the employer’s business. (Note that the use of medical and recreational marijuana is legal in Massachusetts)


In Barbuto, an employee with Crohn’s disease was fired for a positive marijuana test following urine testing mandated by their employer. The employee had a medical marijuana card and requested accommodation of off-site use of marijuana for her disability.


The court held that an employee who uses medicinal marijuana off site and in a manner that does not interfere with job responsibilities cannot be terminated.


The Barbuto decision does not apply to on or off-site use of recreational marijuana. The employee was able to prevail because they were using medical marijuana for an underlying disability: Crohn’s disease.


Employers can still discipline/terminate employees who use recreational marijuana, whether on- or off-site. However, there are states that have prohibited employees being treated adversely for any marijuana use, including California and Washington D.C. You may start to see the laws in some New England states change to conform with these states. Be careful to stay abreast of any changes in the law.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

01 May, 2024
On April 29 th , 2024, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized their guidance in harassment in the workplace after receiving and responding to nearly 38,000 public comments on the proposed guidance released on October 2, 2023. The renewed guidance provides numerous clarifying hypotheticals, and addresses more recent issues including protections for LGBTIQA+ employees and remote work. Of note, the EEOC clarified the scope of sex discrimination and harassment, stating that federal protections under Title VII extend to LGBTIQA+ employees. Specifically, the EEOC made clear that the scope of harassment extends to repeatedly and intentionally misgendering employees or denying access to bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity. Further, this guidance reminds employers that discrimination and harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, which include employees’ decisions related to contraception and abortion. Several public comments suggested that these guidelines infringed on free speech and religious rights. The EEOC did not directly address these concerns, instead stating that free speech and religious rights issues are fact-specific and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Further, the EEOC updated guidance related to the remote work environment. The EEOC clarified that conduct in a virtual work environment, including electronic communications using private phones, computers, or social media accounts can contribute to a hostile work environment if they impact the workplace. The EEOC also clarified that conduct occurring outside of the workplace, including on social media, which does not target the employer or its employees and is not brought into the workplace generally will not contribute to a hostile work environment. Finally, the EEOC updated its Anti-Harassment Policy Requirements, stating that an anti-harassment and discrimination policy should be widely disseminated to employees, in a manner that is understandable by all employees and includes i) a definition of prohibited conduct, ii) a requirement that supervisors report harassment, iii) multiple avenues for reporting harassment, iv) a statement that clearly identifies accessible points of contact for reporting purposes, and v) an explanation of the complaint process, including adequate anti-retaliation and confidentiality protections, and prompt and effective investigation and corrective action. You can read more about the EEOC's ruling on their website by clicking here . If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.
Share by: