Patients who use prescription medications often have recourse under the Americans With

Disabilities Act (ADA) if they are discriminated against for using their medicine. However,
courts have found that ADA protections do not apply to medical cannabis since it is federally
illegal. Several of the more recent medical cannabis laws include language intended to prevent
discrimination against medical cannabis patients in housing, child custody cases, organ
transplants, college enrollment, or employment, with some limitations. In states without strong
language preventing such discrimination, court decisions have been mixed, though the recent
trend has been more favorable. In 16 of the 33 medical marijuana states, either the laws include
some explicit employment protections or courts have ruled in favor of employees — Arizona,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia.

The below chart includes excerpts from state laws that might be relevant to court cases
challenging discrimination against state-legal patients who use or test positive for marijuana,
along with known court cases in each state. States may also have broader, non-marijuana specific
laws that protect patients from discrimination. Those laws are typically not included below.

Court Language Limiting

State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions
Alaska None known. “Except as otherwise provided by law,
a person is not subject to arrest,
prosecution, or penalty in any manner
for applying to have the person's
name placed on the confidential
registry maintained by the department
under AS 17.37.010.”
Arizona In State v. ● Registered patients and caregivers are
Maestas, a not subject to “penalty in any manner,
state Supreme or denial of any right or privilege,
Court found including any civil penalty or
the legislature disciplinary action by a court or
violated the occupational or professional licensing
Voter board” for the permissible conduct.
Protection Act Discrimination by schools, landlords,
by trying to and employers is generally prohibited,
ban cannabis as well as discrimination in respect to
at colleges. organ transplants, other medical care,
and custody and visitation. Employers
generally cannot penalize patients for
a positive drug test for marijuana
“unless the patient used, possessed or
was impaired by marijuana at or
during work.” Nursing homes,
assisted living centers, and similar
facilities generally “may not
unreasonably limit a registered
qualifying patients' access to or use of
marijuana authorized under this
chapter.”
NOTE: This is not intended for or offered as legal advice. It is for informational and
educational purposes only. Updated January 2020
Possible Protections
“Nothing in this chapter requires
any accommodation of any
medical use of marijuana (1) in
any place of employment …”
The prohibitions on
discrimination by employers,
landlords, schools, and assisted
living facilities do not apply if
failing to penalize the cardholder
would cause the entity “to lose a
monetary or licensing related
benefit under federal law or
regulations.” The law also does
not allow anyone to undertake
“any task under the influence of
marijuana when doing so would
constitute negligence or
professional malpractice.” A 2011
law allows employers to take
actions based on “good faith”
beliefs about employee
impairment. A 2012 law
attempted to ban the use of
marijuana on college campuses
and vocational schools but it was
challenged in court.
 State Court Decisions Relevant Statutory Language Language Limiting
Possible Protections
Arkansas None known. Registered patients may not “be The protections do not require
subject to arrest, prosecution, or employers to accommodate
penalty in any manner or denied ingestion in a workplace or an
any right or privilege, including employee working under the
without limitation a civil penalty influence. Landlords are not
or disciplinary action by a required to permit consumption
business, occupational, or by smoking in a leased property.
professional licensing board or
bureau.” “An employer shall not
discriminate against an individual
in hiring, termination, or any term
or condition of employment, or
otherwise penalize an individual,
based upon the individual’s past or
present status as a qualifying
patient or designated caregiver.”
Calif. In Ross v. In 2015, Gov. Brown signed into The law does not require
Ragingwire, the law a bill to prevent organ accommodation “on the property
state Supreme transplants from being denied or premises of any place of
Court ruled that based solely on a person’s status as employment or during the hours
the law does not a medical marijuana patient or a of employment or on the property
protect patients patient’s positive test for medical or premises of any jail,
from firing for marijuana, except as noted to the correctional facility, or other type
testing positive right. of penal institution in which
for metabolites. It prisoners reside or persons under
Also, the adult-use law voters
noted that the arrest are detained.”
approved in 2016 includes parental
legislature could
protections, “The status and
enact such The organ protections do not
conduct of a qualified patient …
protections. apply, “to the extent that the
shall not, by itself, be used to
qualified patient’s use of medical
restrict or abridge custodial or
marijuana has been found by a
parental rights to minor children in
physician and surgeon, following
any action or proceeding under the
a case-by-case evaluation of the
jurisdiction of family or juvenile
potential recipient, to be
court.”
medically significant to the
provision of the anatomical gift.”
Colorado In Coats v. DISH Colorado’s law says, “the use of Col. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14. (10)
Network, the medical marijuana is allowed (b) specifies “Nothing in this
Colorado under state law” to the extent it is section shall require any employer
Supreme Court carried out in accordance with the to accommodate the medical use
ruled against a state constitution, statutes, and of marijuana in any work place.”
paralyzed patient regulations. Mr. Coats’ attorney
who sued after unsuccessfully argued the state’s
being terminated “Lawful Off-Duty Activities
for off-hours Statute,” which protects employees
medical from being penalized for legal
marijuana use. outside-of-work behavior,
protected his medical cannabis use.

2
 State Court Relevant Statutory Language Language Limiting
Decisions Possible Protections
Conn. Noffsinger v. The law says patients and The protections from discrimination
SSN Niantic caregivers should not be “denied include an exception for if it is
Operating any right or privilege, including, “required by federal law or required to
Co. LLC (D. but not limited to, being subject to obtain federal funding.” The law does
Conn 2018) any disciplinary action by a not “restrict an employer's ability to
found professional licensing board” for discipline an employee for being
federal law the permitted conduct. It also under the influence of intoxicating
doesn’t includes protections from substances during work hours.”
preempt discrimination based on one’s Patients cannot use marijuana on any
employee status as a patient or caregiver by school grounds, including in dorms or
protections. landlords, employers, and schools. other college property.
Delaware In December Registered patients and caregivers The prohibitions on discrimination by
2018, a may not be denied “any right or employers, landlords, and schools do
Superior privilege” or be subject to not apply if failing to penalize the
Court judge “disciplinary action by a court or cardholder would cause the entity “to
ruled the occupational or professional lose a monetary or licensing-related
state’s licensing board or bureau ” for the benefit under federal law or
protections permissible conduct. The law regulation.” Employers may penalize
weren’t prohibits discrimination by schools, patient-employees for a failed drug
preempted landlords, and employers, as well test if they used, possessed, or were
by federal as discrimination in respect to impaired by cannabis at or during
law and a organ transplants, other medical work. No one may undertake “any
fired patient care, and custody or visitation, task under the influence of marijuana,
could pursue unless an exception applies. when doing so would constitute
a lawsuit. Employers generally cannot negligence or professional
(Chance v. penalize patients for a positive drug malpractice.”
Kraft Heinz) test for marijuana.
District of None “Notwithstanding any other District “Nothing in this act permits a person
Columbia known. law, a qualifying patient may to: (1) Undertake any task under the
possess and administer medical influence of medical marijuana when
marijuana, and possess and use doing so would constitute negligence
paraphernalia, in accordance with or professional malpractice …”
this act and the rules issued
pursuant to section 14.”
Florida None “The medical use of marijuana by a The law does not allow “on-site
known. qualifying patient or caregiver in medical use of marijuana in any
compliance with this section is not correctional institution or detention
subject to criminal or civil liability facility or place of education or
or sanctions under Florida law.” employment, or of smoking medical
marijuana in any public place.”

3

State Court Cases Relevant Statutory Language
Hawaii In Lambdin v. In 2015, a bill was enacted to ban
Marriott Resorts discrimination against medical
Hospitality Group, marijuana patients and caregivers
a federal District by schools, landlords, and
court ruled in favor condominiums and to prevent
of Marriott, which discrimination in medical care and
terminated an parental rights.
employee who
tested positive for
medical marijuana.
(2017)
Illinois None known. Schools, employers, and landlords
cannot refuse to enroll, lease to, or
otherwise penalize someone for
his or her status as a registered
patient or caregiver, unless failing
to do so would create an issue
with federal law, contracts, or
licensing. Patients’ authorized use
of marijuana cannot disqualify a
person from receiving organ
transplants or other medical care
and will not result in the denial of
custody or parenting time, unless
the patient’s actions created an
unreasonable danger to the
minor's safety.
Louisiana No known N/A immunity from prosecution
decisions.
Maine No known Individuals whose conduct is
decisions. authorized by the law “may not be
denied any right or privilege or be
subjected to arrest, prosecution,
penalty or disciplinary action.”
Unless an exception applies, “a
school, employer, or landlord may
not refuse to enroll or employ or
lease to or otherwise penalize a
person solely for that person's
status” as patient or caregiver.
Unless the person’s behavior is
contrary to the best interests of the
child, “a person may not be
denied parental rights and
responsibilities with respect to or
contact with a minor child.”
Language Limiting
Possible Protections
The protections from
discrimination from a school or
landlord do not apply if they would
cause a loss of “a monetary or
licensing-related benefit under
federal law or regulation.” The
child custody protections do not
apply if the conduct “created a
danger to the safety of the minor.”
Condos may prohibit medical
cannabis smoking if they ban
tobacco smoking.
Landlords may prohibit the smoking
of cannabis on the rented premises.
Schools, employers, and landlords,
may penalize a person for their
status as a patient or caregiver if
“failing to do so would put the
school, employer, or landlord 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.”
The law does not “prohibit an
employer from enforcing a policy
concerning drug testing, zero-
tolerance, or a drug free workplace
provided the policy … in a
nondiscriminatory manner.”
The protections do not apply if they
would put a “school, employer, or
landlord in violation of federal law
or cause it to lose a federal contract
or funding.” The law does not
prohibit landlords from restricting
using or growing cannabis if doing
so “would be inconsistent with the
general use of the premises.” It
“does not permit any person to:
Undertake any task under the
influence of marijuana when doing
so would constitute negligence or
professional malpractice ….” The
law does not require employers to
allow impaired workers or cannabis
use at work.
4
 Relevant Statutory Language Limiting
State Court Decisions
Language Possible Protections
Maryland None known. The law protects qualifying The law does not allow anyone to
patients, caregivers, and undertake “any task under the
others involved in the influence of marijuana, when
medical cannabis program doing so would constitute
from “any civil or negligence or professional
administrative penalty, malpractice.” It allows landlords
including a civil penalty or and condominiums to restrict
disciplinary action by a marijuana smoking.
professional licensing board,
or be denied any right or
privilege” when acting in
accordance with the law.
Mass. In Barbuto v. The intent includes “ that “Nothing in this law requires any
Advantage Sales and there should be no accommodation of any on-site
Marketing, the punishment under state law medical use of marijuana in any
Supreme Judicial Court for “patients, caregivers, place of employment, school bus
of Mass. found the health care staff, and or on school grounds, in any
Commonwealth’s anti- dispensaries and their staff.” youth center, in any correctional
discrimination law Individuals meeting the law’s facility, or of smoking medical
applies to handicapped requirements shall not be marijuana in any public place.”
employees who use “penalized under
medical cannabis. It Massachusetts law in any
found the employer has manner, or denied any right
an obligation to or privilege.” Under Mass.
provide reasonable law, handicapped employees
accommodation. have the right to reasonable
accommodation.
Michigan In Casias vs. Wal- Those abiding by the act The law does not allow any
Mart, the U.S. Court of cannot be subject to “penalty person to “undertake any task
Appeals for the Sixth in any manner, or denied any under the influence of marihuana,
District ruled against a right or privilege, including when doing so would constitute
registered medical but not limited to civil negligence or professional
marijuana patient who penalty or disciplinary action malpractice.” Employers are not
sued Wal-Mart for by a business or occupational required “to accommodate the
terminating his or professional licensing ingestion of marihuana in any
employment for testing board or bureau” for actions workplace or any employee
positive for marijuana. allowed by the law. In working while under the influence
addition, “a person shall not of marihuana.”
be denied custody or
visitation of a minor for
acting in accordance with
this act, unless the person's
behavior is such that it
creates an unreasonable
danger to the minor that can
be clearly articulated and
substantiated.”

5
 Court
State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions
Minnesota None known. Unless an exception applies, one’s
status as a registered patient may not
be used:
1) by schools as a reason to
refuse enrollment;
2) by landlords as reason to
refuse to lease to the person;
3) by employers as a reason to
refuse to hire or as a reason to
terminate employment; or
4) as a reason to deny custody or
visitation rights. An employer
generally cannot discriminate
against a patient for a failed drug
test.
Language Limiting
Possible Protections
The law does not require
accommodation if it would
violate federal law or regulations,
or cause the entity to lose a
federal licensing or monetary
benefit. Employers may punish
patients if they are impaired at
work or possess marijuana at
work. In addition, patients may
face civil penalties for
undertaking a task under the
influence of marijuana that would
constitute negligence or
professional malpractice.

Missouri None known. Patients and caregivers in possession
of a valid registration card are
protected from criminal and civil
liability. Patients may not be denied
access to organ transplants.
Amendment 2 does not explicitly
grant employment protections for
workers but does affirm
employers’ rights to not tolerate
or accommodate medical
marijuana use at the workplace.

Montana The Montana The law provides that those abiding The law does not require
Supreme Court by the act “may not be arrested, employers to accommodate
upheld the prosecuted, or penalized in any medical marijuana use, a school
dismissal of a manner or be denied any right or to allow patients to participate in
patient who privilege, including but not limited extracurricular activities, or a
tested positive to civil penalty or disciplinary action landlord to allow medical
for marijuana by a professional licensing board or marijuana cultivation or use.
metabolites in the department of labor and Employers may prohibit medical
Johnson v. industry” for the medical use of marijuana, and it does not provide
Columbia marijuana in accordance with the a cause of action for
Falls act. discrimination. Cultivation
Aluminum. requires a landlord’s written
As a permission.
memorandum
opinion, it was
not binding
precedent.

6
 Court Language Limiting
State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions Possible Protections
Nevada In 2018, a “A professional licensing board shall The law does not require
Clark County not take any disciplinary action employers to “allow the medical
District Court against a person licensed by the use of marijuana in the
rejected a board” for engaging in the medical workplace” or to “modify the job
motion to use of marijuana or acting as a or working conditions of a person
dismiss a caregiver. who engages in the medical use
lawsuit An employer must “attempt to make of marijuana that are based upon
challenging reasonable accommodations for the the reasonable business purposes
Sunrise medical needs” of patients who are of the employer.”
Hospital’s employees, unless the accommodation
termination would “(a) Pose a threat of harm or
of a nurse for danger to persons or property or
testing impose an undue hardship on the
positive for employer; or (b) Prohibit the
medical employee from fulfilling any and all
marijuana. of his or her job responsibilities.”
The case is
pending.
New In November “For the purposes of medical care, The law does not require “any
Hampshire 2019, a including organ transplants, a accommodation of the therapeutic
former qualifying patient’s authorized use of use of cannabis on the property or
employee of cannabis in accordance with this premises of any place of
Mobility chapter shall be considered the employment.” It also does not
Works sued equivalent of the authorized use of “limit an employer’s ability to
after any other medication … and shall not discipline an employee for
allegedly constitute the use of an illicit ingesting cannabis in the
being fired substance.” Further, “a person workplace or for working while
for testing otherwise entitled to custody of, or under the influence of cannabis.”
positive for visitation or parenting time with, a
medical minor shall not be denied such a right
marijuana for solely for conduct allowed under this
PTSD. The chapter, and there shall be no
case is presumption of neglect or child
pending. endangerment.”

7
 Language Limiting
State Court Decisions Relevant Statutory Language
Possible Protections
New None known For purposes of medical care, medical The limitations for schools,
Jersey subsequent to cannabis “shall not constitute the use of an employers, landlords, and
clearer anti- illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a professional licensing do not
discrimination qualifying patient from needed medical apply if they would
protections being care.” result in the entity “losing a
added to the law in monetary or licensing-
“It shall be unlawful to take any adverse
2019. related benefit granted
employment action against an employee
pursuant to federal law.”
who is a registered qualifying patient
based solely on the employee’s status as a The employment protections
registrant with the commission. If an may not be deemed to
employer has a drug testing policy and an “restrict an employer’s
employee or job applicant tests positive ability to prohibit, or take
for cannabis, the employer shall offer the adverse employment action
employee or job applicant an opportunity for, the possession or use of
to present a legitimate medical intoxicating substances
explanation for the positive test result …” during work hours or on the
premises of the workplace
Schools and those who rent or lease
outside of work hours.”
property may not generally not refuse to
enroll or rent to a person for being a
registered patient.
Participation in the medical cannabis
program “shall not constitute the sole
grounds for entering an order that restricts
or denies custody of, or visitation with, a
minor child of the person.”
New No reported Employers generally may not take The employment protections
Mexico decisions since “adverse employment action against an do not apply to “safety-
explicit applicant or an employee” for state-legal sensitive positions.”
employment medical cannabis-related conduct.
Employers may continue to
protections were
Participation in the medical cannabis take action “for use of, or
enacted in 2019.
program is not, in itself, grounds for being impaired by,
“intervention, removal or placement into [marijuana] on the premises
state custody” of a child. A person “shall of the place of employment
not be denied custody of or visitation or or during the hours of
parenting time with a child, and there is no employment.”
presumption of neglect or child
endangerment” for conduct allowed under
the medical marijuana law.
Schools generally may not “refuse to
enroll or otherwise penalize a person” for
state-legal medical cannabis conduct.
Medical cannabis “shall not be considered
to constitute the use of an illicit substance
or otherwise disqualify a qualified patient
from medical care” including organ
transplants.

8
 Court
State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions
New York None known. Patients may not be subject to
“penalty in any manner, or denied any
right or privilege, including but not
limited to civil penalty or disciplinary
action by a business or occupational
or professional licensing board or
bureau” for actions allowed by the
law. Being a certified patient is
considered a disability for purposes of
the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
Patients are also protected from
discrimination in family law and
domestic relations cases.
North None known. Patients are not subject to arrest,
Dakota prosecution “or the denial of any right
or privilege, including a civil penalty
or disciplinary action by a court or
occupational or professional
regulating entity” for state-legal
medical marijuana activities.
Nursing homes and some other
similar facilities “may not
unreasonably limit a registered
qualifying patient's medical use of
marijuana … unless failing to do so
would cause the facility to lose a
monetary or licensing-related benefit
under federal law or regulations.”
Ohio None known. Patients receive protections from
unfair treatment in child custody
cases. They also may not be denied
rental housing due to patient status.
Further, patients are protected from
discrimination in organ transplant
determinations.
Language Limiting
Possible Protections
The law does not “bar the
enforcement of a policy
prohibiting an employee from
performing his or her
employment duties while
impaired by a controlled
substance.” It also does not
“require any person or entity to
do any act that would put the
person or entity in violation of
federal law or cause it to lose a
federal contract or funding.”
The law “does not prohibit an
employer from disciplining an
employee for possessing or
consuming usable marijuana in
the workplace or for working
while under the influence of
marijuana.”
Employers are not required to
“permit or accommodate an
employee's use, possession, or
distribution of medical
marijuana.” They may “refuse
to hire a patient and may
discharge, discipline, or
otherwise take adverse
employment action” against a
patient. Employers may
“establish and enforce a drug
testing policy, drug-free
workplace policy, or zero-
tolerance drug policy,” and the
law may not be used to
interfere with any federal
restrictions on employment.
9

State Court Decisions Relevant Statutory Language
Oklahoma None known. Includes protections from being
penalized by a school, employer,
or landlord based on one’s status
as a medical cannabis patient.
Employers also may not take
action based on a patient failing a
drug test, but they may prohibit
marijuana use at work and during
work hours. Also includes
protections against discrimination
in medical care (including organ
transplants) and in child custody,
visitation, and child welfare.
Oregon In 2010, the state “No professional licensing board
Supreme Court may impose a civil penalty or take
ruled in Emerald other disciplinary action against a
Steel v. BOLI that licensee based on the licensee’s
patients are not medical use of marijuana,”
protected from pursuant to state law.
being fired for
“When evaluating an applicant, a
testing positive for
landlord may not consider the
metabolites.
possession of a medical marijuana
card or status as a medical
marijuana patient.”
Penn. In 2019, the Court “No employer may discharge,
of Common Pleas threaten, refuse to hire or
of Lackawanna otherwise discriminate or retaliate
County ruled the against an employee” based on an
state’s medical employee’s status as a medical
cannabis law cannabis patient. An action in
includes an accordance with the medical
implicit right of marijuana law “shall not by itself
action for be considered by a court in a
wrongful custody proceeding.” State
termination and agencies will promulgate rules
allowed a patient’s regarding marijuana possession at
lawsuit to proceed. schools and daycares.
(Pamela Palmiter
v. Commonwealth
Health Systems
Inc., et al.)
Language Limiting
Possible Protections
A school, employer, or
landlord may punish the patient
if “failing to do so would
imminently cause the school or
landlord to lose a monetary or
licensing related benefit under
federal law or regulations.”
The legislature added an
exclusion to employment
protections in 2019 for broadly
defined “safety sensitive
positions.”
“Nothing in ORS 475.300 to
475.346 shall be construed to
require … An employer to
accommodate the medical use
of marijuana in any
workplace.”
The law does not “require an
employer to make any
accommodation of the use of
medical marijuana [at] … any
place of employment.” It does
not “limit an employer's ability
to discipline an employee for
… working while under the
influence of medical marijuana
when the employee's conduct
falls below the standard of care
normally accepted for that
position.” Nor does it require
employers to break federal law.
10
 Court Language Limiting
State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions Possible Protections
Rhode In Callaghan v. Patients and caregivers abiding by the The law does not allow “any
Island Darlington act may not be subject to “penalty in person to undertake any task
Fabrics Corp., any manner, or denied any right or under the influence of
the Superior privilege, including but not limited to, marijuana, when doing so
Court ruled an civil penalty or disciplinary action by would constitute negligence or
employer could a business or occupational or professional malpractice …”
not refuse to professional licensing board or In addition, “nothing in this
hire an intern bureau” for the medical use of chapter shall be construed to
who was a marijuana. Also, “no school, require: … an employer to
state-legal employer, or landlord may refuse to accommodate the medical use
medical enroll, employ, or lease to or of marijuana in any
marijuana otherwise penalize a person solely for workplace.”
patient even if his or her status as a cardholder.”
she wouldn’t Further, “for the purposes of medical
pass a drug test. care, including organ transplants, a
registered qualifying patient's
authorized use of marijuana shall be
considered the equivalent of the
authorized use of any other
medication used at the direction of a
physician, and shall not constitute the
use of an illicit substance.”
Utah None known. Registered healthcare providers and A patient cardholder may not
patients are protected from criminal use marijuana in public view.
and civil liability, provided they
comply with the law. Patients may not
be denied access to organ transplants.
State employees may not be
disciplined or discriminated against
on the basis of their status as a
registered patient and their use of
medical marijuana in compliance with
the law. The law prohibits courts from
considering the lawful use of medical
marijuana in custody hearings.
Driving with a measurable amount of
marijuana in one’s system can be
defended against prosecution if the
usage was legal under Utah law.

11
 Court Language Limiting
State Relevant Statutory Language
Decisions Possible Protections

Vermont None known. The patient and caregiver protections The law does not exempt
in the medical marijuana law are from patients from arrest or
criminal penalties. prosecution for being under the
influence of marijuana “in a
workplace or place of
employment” or for using or
possessing marijuana “in a
manner that endangers the
health or well-being of another
person.”

Wash. In 2011, the Medical marijuana cannot be the “sole
Washington disqualifying factor” for an organ
State Supreme transplant unless it could cause
Court ruled in rejection or organ failure, though a
favor of an patient could be required to abstain
employer who before or during the transplant. The
was sued after law also limits when parental rights
terminating a and residential time can be limited
medical due to the medical use of marijuana.
marijuana
patient (Roe v.
Teletech
Customer Care
Management).
West None known. “No employer may discharge,
Virginia threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise
discriminate or retaliate against an
employee regarding an employee’s
compensation, terms, conditions,
location or privileges solely on the
basis of such employee’s status as an
individual who is certified to use
medical cannabis.” The bureau will
promulgate rules regarding medical
cannabis at schools and daycares.
“Nothing in this chapter
requires any accommodation of
any on-site medical use of
cannabis in any place of
employment, in any school bus
or on any school grounds, in
any youth center, in any
correctional facility, or
smoking cannabis in any public
place or hotel or motel.” An
employer explicitly does not
have to accommodate medical
marijuana if it establishes a
drug-free workplace.
The law does not limit “an
employer’s ability to discipline
an employee for being under
the influence of medical
cannabis in the workplace or
for working while under the
influence of medical cannabis
when the employee’s conduct
falls below the standard of care
normally accepted for that
position.” Employers also don’t
have to allow on-site cannabis
use.

12