What Employers Should Know About the Regulation of Marijuana
申请人及雇员的大麻毒品测试是一般允许，雇主仍然可以发现违反精心打造的药物政策，对申请人及雇员采取行动。
As of January 2013,
18 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books legalizing the use of medical marijuana. A number of additional states have gone even further by passing laws decriminalizing or eliminating jail time for possession of small amounts of marijuana, regardless of whether the marijuana was for medical use. Finally, two states Colorado and Washington passed laws on November 6, 2012, affirmatively legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Many employers are concerned about what these marijuana laws mean for them and whether they need to make any changes to their drug policies in light of recent developments. Regardless of state law, marijuana possession and use remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. In an official statement after the November election, the U.S. Attorney s Office stated that the U.S. Department of Justice s enforcement of marijuana laws remains unchanged. Therefore, even with the passage of the new laws in Colorado and Washington, both recreational and medical marijuana use remains illegal under federal law. Furthermore, the explicit language of Colorado and Washington s new laws should minimize their impact in the workplace. Neither law affords affirmative employee work rights with respect to marijuana. To the contrary, Colorado s law specifically states: Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees. Additionally, at least two Colorado court decisions have held the use of medical marijuana does not constitute lawful off-duty conduct. This is important because under Colorado law, it is unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee for engaging inlawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. In Beinor v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office s denial of unemployment benefits to the claimant and concluded that, although the Colorado Constitution precluded a claimant from being criminally prosecuted for using marijuana for medical purposes, it does not preclude him from being denied unemployment benefits based on a separation from employment for testing positive for marijuana in violation of an employer s express zero-tolerance drug policy. Similarly, in June 2011, a Colorado court found using medical marijuana does not qualify as lawful off-duty conduct because medical marijuana was not per se legal in Colorado. Washington s new law does not directly address employers drug policies. However, a Washington Supreme Court case addressing the issue of medical marijuana determined the state s medical marijuana law did not prevent an employer from firing an employee for medical marijuana use. A number of other states also have determined their medical marijuana laws do not prohibit employers from terminating employees for violation of drug policies. For example, in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., the Supreme Court of California determined an employee was not wrongfully terminated when he failed a drug test and his employer had no duty to accommodate his medical marijuana use. Although there are not yet any cases dealing with employers right to terminate employees for violation of drug policies after the passage of Colorado and Washington s recreational marijuana laws, the medical marijuana use cases in those states are indicative of what the result would be if an employee attempted to argue wrongful termination for recreational marijuana use. The argument for continued prohibition of recreational marijuana use under drug policies is even stronger than the argument for continued prohibition of medical marijuana. If an employer can refuse to hire or terminate the employment of someone who uses marijuana for medical purposes, then that employer should be able to refuse to hire or terminate someone who uses marijuana recreationally. Therefore, drug testing of applicants and employees for marijuana is still generally permissible, and employers still can take action against applicants and employees found to be in violation of carefully crafted drug policies. Employers should review their drug testing policies, or have them reviewed, to ensure compliance with the latest nuances in this emerging area of the law, particularly with respect to variations in state law. 管理新知 您可能感兴趣的文章 HR微语—判断Idea是否可行的方法 2011-10-08 看完这些简历，你就知道为什么做HR需要强大的内心了 2017-12-07 It’s Not LinkedIn Who’d Be Burnt By a Facebook Job Board 2012-07-30 最近文章 TEST 2018年01月15日 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？
2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？
2018年01月15日 因利益冲突，Facebook COO和Twitter CEO退出迪士尼董事会 2018年01月15日 热门文章 嫖娼被抓不属无故旷工，公司解雇赔4万！（法院判决） 2018年01月15日 如何判断你是否具有HRBP胜任力？
2018年01月15日 阿里为什么不去清华招人？
2018年01月15日 2017年度职场出差行程调查，出差最多的居然是他们！！
2018年01月12日 员工在自己QQ空间评论HR经理吃屎，可辞退他吗？
2018年01月11日 扫一扫 加微信【已隐去】 关于沙龙 顾问委员 广告推广 隐私安全 联系我们 申请vip会员 支付方式 市场合作或广告投放 电话：【电话已隐去】 邮件：【邮箱已隐去】 在线QQ【已隐去】 VIP会员 企业VIP会员 机构VIP会员 广告刊例 商务合作 Follow HRSalon