Category: Drugs and Alcohol

Show All Categories

Drugs and Alcohol

Navigating the Legalization of Marijuana: Updating Drug and Alcohol Policies

Last week, we posted a blog addressing how the recent legalization of recreational cannabis in Minnesota may affect employee drug-testing policies. We now direct our attention to employers with questions about their general drug and alcohol policies. Here are some things to consider when changing an existing drug and alcohol policy. Understanding the Law As discussed in the prior blog, the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“the Act”) has always prohibited impairment in the workplace, and that has not changed. Under the new law, an employer is not required to permit or accommodate cannabis use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer while an employee is working or while an employee is on the employer’s premises, or operating the employer’s vehicle, machinery, or equipment. Therefore, even though another Minnesota law, the Consumable Products Act (the “CPA”), prohibits an employer from restricting an employee’s lawful off-duty use of cannabis, nothing in the law requires employers to accommodate or permit an employee’s on-the-job possession or use. Review Your Drug and Alcohol Policy When looking to an existing drug and alcohol policy, employers should pay attention to ensure that the policy does not restrict an employee’s off-duty rights. For instance, we often see policies that broadly prohibit an employee’s use of “controlled substances” unless prescribed by a physician for treatment. Marijuana and cannabis products are no longer considered “controlled substances” as they were prior to August 1st of this year, so that prohibition is problematic under the law. In light of this definitional shift, and because pursuant to the CPA an employer may not discipline or discharge an employee because he or she engages in the lawful use of cannabis products off-premises during nonworking hours, employers should consider an impairment-based policy instead. By shifting the focus to what is prohibited while at work, the employer eliminates the risk of restricting what the employee is legally free to do during their off time. Train Supervisors Minnesota law continues to permit an employer to discipline, discharge or take other adverse personnel action against an employee for using, possessing, selling or being impaired while an employee is working, on the employer’s premises, or operating the employer’s vehicle machinery, or equipment. The Act allows an employer to take adverse action against an employee if, as the result of consuming cannabis, the employee “does not possess that clearness of intellect and control of self that the employee otherwise would have.” The person most likely to identify an employee who meets this standard is the employee’s supervisor. Employers should provide employers with training on the symptoms of impairment that can result from use of cannabis products so that supervisors can recognize an impaired employee. Supervisors should be made aware of their critical role in evaluating whether an employee is impaired as a result of using cannabis. Considerations for Job Applicants Employers should be mindful of how the legalization of cannabis alters the rights of not only existing employees but applicants as well. The CPA also protects an applicant’s use of lawful consumable products off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours. Therefore, regardless of whether an employer actually conducts pre-employment testing, the law now makes it unlawful to withdraw an offer of employment based on the candidate’s off-duty, off-premises use of marijuana and cannabis products. Conclusion With the passage of Minnesota’s recreational cannabis law, employers will need to revisit their drug and alcohol policies, as well as any hiring policies and practices affected by the law, to ensure they are legally compliant. Employers need to work with supervisors to assist in recognizing an employee who, as the result of consuming cannabis products, does not possess the clearness of intellect and control that the employee usually has. Employers who have questions about any of this new legislation should contact a Larkin Hoffman attorney.

Drugs and Alcohol

Navigating the Legalization of Marijuana: Update Your Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies

On August 1, 2023, recreational marijuana and cannabis products became legal in the state of Minnesota. Employers are now asking how this new law affects their employment policies and procedures. In the first of a two-part series of blog posts on how the legalization of marijuana affects drug and alcohol polices, we address whether employers need to modify their drug and alcohol testing policies in light of this significant change in the law. Here are some things to consider in changing existing testing policies and procedures. Understanding the Law Employers are concerned that employees are now allowed to come to work stoned. In fact, the opposite is true. The Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“the Act”) has always prohibited impairment in the workplace, and that has not changed. Under the law, an employer is not required to permit or accommodate cannabis use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer while an employee is working or while an employee is on the employer’s premises or operating the employer’s vehicle, machinery, or equipment. Although an employer is not permitted to restrict an employee’s lawful off-duty use of cannabis, Minnesota law does not require that employers accommodate or permit an employee’s on-the-job possession or use. Consequently, drug and alcohol policies should include a provision explicitly prohibiting the use of cannabis, drugs and alcohol while working, operating company vehicles or on company premises. Review Your Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy The first step in modifying an existing drug and alcohol testing policy is to review the portion of the policy which prohibits the use of drugs (and alcohol) while working. With certain exceptions, which will be discussed below, the Act removes marijuana and cannabis products from the definition of “drug” for purposes of drug testing, and the substance is now considered separate from drugs and alcohol. Therefore, the definition of “drug” in the policy should no longer include cannabis; nor should it be so broad that it encompasses personal use of the substance off-premises during nonworking hours. Drug and alcohol testing policies should add cannabis to the provision prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol while working, operating company vehicles or on company premises (e.g. “The Employer prohibits the use, possession, impairment, sale, or transfer of cannabis, drugs, and alcohol…”). When is Drug Testing Allowed? It is permissible to test for cannabis under the new law under certain scenarios, most of which will be familiar to employers with existing drug and alcohol testing policies. Employees may be subject to random testing for cannabis while working in safety-sensitive positions. Employees may also be tested when there is reasonable suspicion that they: Are under the influence of cannabis or other drugs; have violated the employer’s written work rules prohibiting the use, possession, sale, or transfer of cannabis, drugs, or alcohol; have sustained (or caused another to sustain) a personal injury; or have caused a work-related accident or were operating or helping to operate machinery, equipment, or vehicles involved in a work-related accident. Employees may also be tested during the post-treatment period (up to two years, depending upon the employer’s policy). Despite the fact that employers may still test under these circumstances, many drug and alcohol testing policies will nevertheless need to be amended because they have defined prohibited drugs to be those governed by the federal Controlled Substances Act, and while cannabis is a prohibited controlled substance under federal law, it is not a prohibited substance under Minnesota law. Under most circumstances, testing applicants for cannabis is no longer permissible, and the detection of marijuana in a drug test cannot be used as a reason for rescinding a job offer. However, for the following specific positions, applicants may continue to be tested for cannabis: Safety sensitive positions (jobs where impairment caused by cannabis usage would threaten the health and safety of any individual) Peace officers and firefighters Positions requiring face-to-face care, training, education, supervision, counseling, consultation, or medical assistance to children, vulnerable adults, or patients receiving medical, psychiatric, or mental health care services Positions requiring a commercial driver’s license or operating a motor vehicle for which state or federal law mandates drug or alcohol testing Employment funded by a federal grant or any other position for which state or federal law requires testing a job applicant or employee for cannabis Additionally, the employee protections for the use of marijuana as described above do not apply to all employees. There are exclusions when the specific work being performed requires that employees and job applicants undergo drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing where: Federal regulations preempt state regulations regarding drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing for specific employees and job applicants; Federal regulations or requirements are necessary for operating facilities under federal regulation; Drug and alcohol testing or cannabis testing is conducted pursuant to federal contracts for security, safety, or protection of sensitive or proprietary data; or State agency rules adopt federal regulations applicable to the interstate component of a federally regulated industry and the adoption of those rules is for the purpose of conforming the non-federally regulated intrastate component of the industry. Conclusion Considering marijuana’s lingering presence in the bloodstream, some employers might forgo testing altogether. However, those employing workers in safety-sensitive positions are likely to have a different perspective, since an employee coming to work under the influence could cause serious accidents, injury and even death to themselves or others. One thing is certain—all employers must reconsider their drug and alcohol testing policies to account for the legalization of recreational marijuana and cannabis products.

Drugs and Alcohol

Legalized Recreational Marijuana Use Has Arrived in Minnesota

The Minnesota legislature has passed a bill permitting recreational marijuana use by adults, making Minnesota the 23rd state to legalize cannabis. Governor Walz is expected to sign the bill, which establishes a complex regulatory framework for the newly legalized product.  Among many other statutes, the new law contains a number of provisions that will affect employers doing business in Minnesota. Medical Marijuana The new law maintains the state’s medical marijuana program and continues to provide employment protections for a patient enrolled in the registry program.  As previously discussed here unless a failure to do so would violate federal or state law​ or regulations or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under​ federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based on either of the following: The person’s status as a patient enrolled in the registry program; or A patient’s positive drug test for cannabis components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed, or was impaired by medical cannabis on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. The law permits an employee who is a patient to present the employee’s registry verification to explain a positive drug test. Use of Off-Duty Lawful Consumable Products Minnesota law already prohibits an employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because the employee has engaged in the use or enjoyment of lawful consumable products if the use or enjoyment takes place off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours unless the restriction: Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement and is reasonably related to employment activities or responsibilities of a particular employee or group of employees; or Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with any responsibilities owed by the employee to the employer. The new law adds cannabis to the state’s definition of “lawful consumable product.” Thus, an employer may not fire, discipline, or refuse to hire an individual for his or her use or enjoyment of cannabis (or products containing cannabis) outside of work during nonworking hours. Drug Testing in the Workplace Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“DATWA”) has historically permitted employers to test for cannabis as a substance considered a “drug” under the state’s schedule of controlled substances. The new law amends DATWA in several ways. First, it imposes a general prohibition on testing job applicants for cannabis or otherwise using cannabis test results to make hiring decisions. However, existing testing requirements would continue to apply to (1) a safety-sensitive position; (2) a peace officer; (3) a firefighter; (4) a position working directly with children, vulnerable adults, or healthcare patients; (5) a position requiring a commercial driver’s license or requiring testing for motor vehicle operation; (6) a federally funded grant position; or (7) any other position where state or federal law require testing. Second, since the new law no longer treats cannabis as an “illegal drug,” a test for cannabis is now considered separate from a test for other prohibited drugs.  The practical effect of this is that employers may not, for instance, conduct a random test for cannabis if the employee is not employed in a safety-sensitive position, and reasonable suspicion testing and treatment program testing (for cannabis) may be conducted under circumstances that would generally permit a drug or alcohol test. DATWA’s requirements that employees be issued written notice of the employer’s drug-testing policy remain unchanged. Therefore, employers should plan on revising any existing drug-testing policies to conform to the new law. Workplace Cannabis Policies Despite the enactment of laws permitting the recreational use of cannabis for adults, employers are not required to permit or accommodate cannabis use, possession, sale, transfer, or impairment while at work, on work property, or operating the employer’s vehicle, machinery, or equipment. An employer may create written policies addressing such prohibitions. Employers with questions about the application of this new statute and the appropriate immediate actions to address it should consult a Larkin Hoffman attorney.

Accommodations

Minnesota Employers Navigate Legalized THC Edibles

Minnesota employers who conduct pre-employment drug testing or drug testing of current employees are familiar with the protections for employees who are enrolled in the Department of Health Patient Registry Program for medical marijuana.  An employer cannot discriminate against a person enrolled on the Patient Registry in hiring, termination or any term or condition of employment based upon a positive drug test for cannabis components or metabolites unless the employee used, possessed or was impaired by medical cannabis on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.  This provision has been a challenge to apply because marijuana stays in the system for so long, and it can be difficult to ascertain if a person who fails a marijuana drug test is actually impaired at the time of the test. Now, Minnesota employers have another challenge in their effort to maintain a drug-free workplace with the Minnesota legislature’s legalization of certain forms of marijuana for recreational use.  Effective July 1, 2022, Minnesotans can lawfully purchase and consume edible and drinkable products containing hemp derived THC.  THC is an element of cannabis which is considered a hallucinogenic substance. The Minnesota statute excludes from its list of controlled substances hemp products that contain no more than 0.3 percent of any form of THC.  The Minnesota law goes further and allows Minnesotans to purchase edible and drinkable products that contain no more than 5 milligrams of THC per serving and no more than 50 milligrams per package. This Minnesota law does not affect drug testing conducted pursuant to federal law, such as for truck drivers covered by the U.S. Department of Transportation drug and alcohol testing regulations. The THC statute does not discuss protections for employees or applicants who test positive for marijuana because they have consumed a THC product.  An applicant or an employee can now explain a positive result for marijuana as arising from the lawful use of THC products, which creates a conundrum for employers.  Can they require that the employee undergo the procedures described in the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act because of testing positive for marijuana?  Or should they disregard the positive test result?  An employer must consider whether the individual who has tested positive for marijuana because of consuming THC holds a position where being under the influence of marijuana could be a safety concern.  Marijuana can remain in a user’s body for up to four weeks after the marijuana is consumed, so the individual may not actually be working under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug because it could have been consumed several weeks before the drug test. In addition, Minnesota’s Lawful Consumable Products Act poses another problem.  This statute protects the consumption of a lawful consumable product during an employee’s non-work time.  The statute defines a “lawful consumable product” as a product whose use or enjoyment is lawful, and specifically includes food, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages, and tobacco.  It is unclear if THC edibles fall under this statute, and if they do, it would protect an employee who receives a positive marijuana test because of the consumption of THC. In 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court held that employers could enforce their zero tolerance policies against employees who are allowed to use medical cannabis under state law, even if the employee uses the marijuana during nonwork hours.  The Colorado Supreme Court stated that to be protected under the lawful consumable product statute in that state, the use must be “lawful” under both state and federal law.  Therefore, since marijuana is illegal under federal law, a Colorado employee testing positive for medical marijuana can be disciplined, including termination, for failing a drug test.  The Minnesota THC statute makes no reference to the lawful consumable products statute so it is unknown how that statute would be interpreted by a court with respect to THC edibles. What Should Minnesota Employers Do in Light of These Ambiguities? Many employers are considering waiving a positive marijuana test, or not testing for marijuana at all, because so many applicants and employees are failing drug tests.  These employers are trying to assess the risk in allowing an employee who tests positive for marijuana to be hired or to retain their employment.  Employers can still prohibit employees from coming to work impaired by marijuana, and for using marijuana in the workplace, but impairment can be difficult to identify.  Whether employers should take action against an employee who tests positive for marijuana because the employee has consumed a THC edible, depends on the duties and responsibilities of the employee.  Additionally, supervisors and managers will have to be trained to recognize whether an employee is coming to work under the influence of marijuana.  They must be able to recognize impairment since a positive marijuana test does not necessarily mean that an individual is impaired at the time the test was taken. Employers will also have to evaluate the risk and safety of allowing an applicant or employee to continue to work when they have failed a marijuana test.  Some employers may decide to test only those employees in safety sensitive positions. Hopefully, the testing laboratories will refine their testing procedures so that it is easier to determine whether a positive drug test derives from lawful THC.  For now, employers can take adverse action against an employee who fails a drug test because of consuming lawful THC (subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act, such as the requirement that before disciplining an employee, the employee must be offered an opportunity to be assessed by a chemical dependency counselor and comply with the counselor’s recommendations).  It may take the courts some time to determine whether THC edibles are a lawful consumable product protected by the Lawful Consumable Product Act. Employers should consult with their legal counsel to discuss whether to cease testing for marijuana.  At present, there is uncertainty as to the impact of the new THC statute on an employer’s right to maintain a zero-tolerance policy for drugs, including marijuana.  I recommend employers keep a close eye on this issue as new information develops. Phyllis Karasov is an attorney who advises businesses on labor and employment matters. Her clients come from a variety of sectors, including construction, manufacturing, higher education, K-12 private education, nonprofit and healthcare.

Best Practices

It’s Party Time!

The time has come for companies to begin planning their 2019 holiday parties.  While these events are a great way to show appreciation for employees and build morale, they can present certain risks for employers.  Being mindful of the following issues can help employers avoid complaints, or worse, lawsuits, associated with holiday parties. Alcohol While alcohol is common, and often expected, at holiday parties, employers can and should be mindful of potential problems which could follow, including employees driving after drinking at the party.  If an employee drives drunk and injures another person while driving home from the party, a lawsuit could follow in which the employer could potentially be exposed to liability.  The best way to avoid alcohol-related problems at a holiday party is to consider some or all of the following suggestions: •   Use drink tickets rather than an open bar to limit consumption; •   Offer taxi or Uber credits to employees; •   Instruct bartenders not to overserve and to monitor employees’ alcohol consumption; •   Close the bar well before the party comes to an end; and/or •   Before the party, remind employees in writing that, although alcohol will be served, employees are still expected to behave professionally and that anyone who plans to drink must secure a ride home. In addition, employers should consider designating one or more managers to be on the lookout for anyone who appears to be impaired so that any problems can be addressed early on. Sexual Harassment Harassment claims often go hand in hand with alcohol consumption.  While employers certainly do not need to hand out copies of their harassment policies at the entrance, they should be conducting harassment trainings with their employees and reminding employees of harassment policies on an annual basis, if not more often.  Doing so will place the issue in employees’ minds and potentially help support a legal defense to any harassment claim down the road if an incident does occur. Discrimination In general, employers should avoid making holiday parties about one particular holiday or another.  Instead, the celebration should be inclusive of all employees’ beliefs and cultures.  A holiday party with overt religious references may cause an employee who believes that he or she has been the subject of religious discrimination with one more reason to voice a complaint or assert a claim.  The same applies to other forms of holiday celebration (e.g. “secret Santa” gift exchanges which can make non-Christians feel excluded).  While an employer’s reference to Christmas, Hanukkah or any other seasonal religious holiday is unlikely to be the reason an employer has legal exposure, it certainly won’t help when defending against a claim based upon religious discrimination or harassment. Mandatory Attendance and Wage and Hour Issues Every company wants its holiday party to be well attended.  Some go so far as to make attendance mandatory.  However, if an employer tells nonexempt employees that attendance at the party is required, the employer may be opening itself up to a host of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law claims.  If attendance at a holiday party truly is mandatory, it is likely employees will have to be paid for the time they spend there.  Additional relevant factors include whether the party takes place during working hours and on or off the company’s premises.  If an employer does not plan to pay non-exempt employees for attendance at its holiday party, the employer should make clear, in writing, that attendance is optional (and ideally, that the party will take place outside of working hours and away from the employer’s office). Conclusion These are just a few of the commonsense tips employers should have in mind when preparing for and hosting holiday parties.  Although not all employers (and certainly not all employees) will necessarily embrace these tips, they can help holiday parties serve as a fun-filled event rather than a source of liability and legal headaches.