ALASKA: Nothing in law requires accommodating medical use of marijuana in place of employment [Title 17: Food and Drugs, Chapter 37. Medical Uses of Marijuana, Sec. 17.37.040(d)(1)].
ARIZONA: a. Unless failing to do so would cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing benefit under federal law, employer may not discriminate against person in hiring, termination, conditions of employment or otherwise penalize based on: i. person’s status as a cardholder; or ii. registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana or metabolites, unless patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on premises of place of employment or during hours of employment [Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, Sec. 36-2813(B)]; b. Nothing in law requires employer to allow ingestion of marijuana in workplace or employee to work under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient not deemed under the influence just because of presence of metabolites or marijuana components in insufficient concentration to cause impairment; and c. Nothing in law bans employer from disciplining for ingesting marijuana in workplace or working under influence of marijuana [Secs. 36-2814(A)(3) and (B)].
CALIFORNIA: Nothing in law requires accommodating any medical use of marijuana on property or premises of any place of employment or during hours of employment [Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Sec. 11362,785(a)].
COLORADO: Nothing in law requires any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in workplace [State Const., Art. XVIII(b)].
CONNECTICUT: a. Unless required by federal law or to obtain federal funding, no employer may refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize or threaten an employee solely on the basis of status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver under the law; and b. Nothing in law restricts an employer’s ability to ban use of intoxicating substances during work hours or discipline an employee for being under the influence of intoxicating substances during work hours [Palliative Use of Marijuana, Sec. 21a-408p(b)(3)].
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Doesn’t say anything about cannabis in the workplace.
DELAWARE: Unless failing 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, conditions of employment or otherwise penalize based upon: i. status as a cardholder; or ii. a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired on premises or during hours of employment [Delaware Medical Marijuana Act, Sec. 4905A]; b. Nothing in law requires employer to allow ingestion of marijuana in workplace or any employee to work under influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient may not be deemed under the influence of marijuana just because of presence of metabolites or marijuana components; and c. Nothing in law bans an employer from disciplining an employee for ingesting marijuana in workplace or working under influence of marijuana [Secs. 4907A(a)(3) and (b)].
HAWAII: Authorization for medical use of marijuana doesn’t apply to medical use of marijuana in workplace of one’s employment [Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Part IX, Medical Use of Marijuana, Sec. 329-122(c)(2)(B)].
ILLINOIS: a. Employer may not penalize person solely because of status as registered qualifying patient (RQP) or registered designated caregiver, unless failing to do so would violate federal law or cause loss of monetary or licensing benefit under federal law [Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, Sec. 40(a)(1)]; b. Employer may adopt “reasonable regulations” for consumption, storage or timekeeping for RQP use of medical cannabis; c. Employer may enforce drug testing, zero tolerance and drug-free workplaces in “nondiscriminatory manner”; d. Employer may discipline RQP for violating a workplace drug policy; e. Employer may discipline RQP for failing drug test if not doing so would violate federal law or cause loss of federal contract or funding; f. Employer may consider RQP impaired when he manifests “specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen” his job performance, including speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery, disregard for safety or involvement in an accident resulting in serious damage, disruption or injury—but must give him a “reasonable opportunity to contest determination”; g. Nothing in law creates a cause of action against an employer for actions based on employer’s “good faith belief” that RQP: i. Used or possessed cannabis on work premises or during work hours; or ii. Was impaired while working on work premises or during work hours [Sec. 50].
MAINE: a. Employer may not refuse to employ or otherwise penalize person solely on basis of status as qualifying patient or primary caregiver unless not doing so would violate federal law or cause loss of federal contract or funding [Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act, Sec. 2423-E(2); and b. Law may not be construed as requiring employer to accommodate ingesting marijuana in workplace or any employee while working under the influence of marijuana [Sec. 2426(2)].
MARYLAND: Doesn’t say anything about cannabis in the workplace.
MASSACUSETTS: Nothing in law requires any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in place of employment [Act for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana, Sec. 5].
MICHIGAN: Doesn’t say anything about cannabis in the workplace.
MINNESOTA: Unless not doing so would violate federal law or cause loss of monetary or licensing benefit under federal law, employers may not discriminate against person in hiring, termination or terms of employment or otherwise penalize due to: i. Status as a patient enrolled in registry program; or ii. Patient’s positive drug test for cannabis components or metabolites, unless patient used, possessed or was impaired by medical cannabis on employment premises or during work hours [Chapter 311—S.F. No. 2470, Sec. 12(c)].
MONTANA: Nothing in law shall be construed as requiring an employer to accommodate the use of medical marijuana by a registered cardholder [Montana Marijuana Act, Sec. 50-46-320(4)(b)].
NEVADA: Law does not require: a. Employer to accommodate medical use of marijuana in workplace; or b. Employer to modify job or working conditions of a medical marijuana user to extent such conditions are based on employer’s “reasonable business purposes”; and c. Employer must try to make reasonable accommodations for medical needs of employee with valid registry identification card, as long as they don’t: i. Pose a threat of harm or danger to other persons or property or impose an undue hardship on the employer; or ii. Prohibit the employee from fulfilling any or all job responsibilities [Medical Use of Marijuana, NRS 453A.800].
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Nothing in law shall be construed a: Requiring any accommodation of the therapeutic use of cannabis on property or premises of employment; or b. Limiting employer’s ability to discipline an employee for ingesting cannabis in the workplace or working under the influence of cannabis [Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes, Sec. 126-X:3(c)].
NEW JERSEY: Nothing in law shall be construed as requiring employer to accommodate medical use of marijuana in workplace [New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, Sec. C.24:6I-14].
NEW MEXICO: Qualified patient or primary caregiver can be prosecuted for possession or use of cannabis in his/her workplace [Lynn and Erin Compassion Use Act, Sec. 5(3)(c)].
NEW YORK: a. Certified patient is considered as having a “disability” under state anti-discrimination law; b. Employers can still enforce policies banning employees from being impaired while doing their job; and c. Nothing in section requires employer to do anything causing it to violate a federal law or lose a federal contract or funding [Medical Use of Marijuana, Sec. 3369].
OREGON: Nothing in law shall be construed as requiring employer to accommodate medical use of marijuana in workplace [Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, Sec. 475.340(2)].
RHODE ISLAND: a. Employer may not refuse to employ or otherwise penalize person solely for status as a cardholder [Edward O. Hawkins & Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act, Sec. 21-28.6-4(c)]; and b. Nothing in law shall be construed as requiring employer to accommodate medical use of marijuana in workplace [Sec. 21-28.6-7(3)(b)].
VERMONT: Nothing in law shall be construed as allowing smoking of marijuana in any public place, including a workplace or place of employment [Therapeutic Use of Cannabis, Sec. 4474c(3)(B)].
WASHINGTON: a. Nothing in law requires accommodation of on-site medical use of cannabis in place of employment; and b. Employers may establish drug-free work policies and nothing in law requires an accommodation for medical use of cannabis if an employer has a drug-free workplace [Medical Cannabis, Sec. 69.51A.060].
Related reading:
Is firing employees for medical marijuana discrimination?
Model Tool: 3 policies to accommodate medical marijuana
Can your law office employees be fired for using legal medical marijuana?