Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

New York Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Cannabis and the Workplace

By Steven Hurd, Alex Downie & Laura Fant on October 27, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Drug Testing

The New York State Department of Labor (“NYDOL”) has issued FAQ guidance addressing common questions regarding recreational cannabis use by employees in and outside of the workplace in light of the enactment earlier this year of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (“MRTA”).

The MRTA legalized the use of recreational marijuana for individuals ages 21 and older.  Notably for employers, the law also amended Section 201-d of the New York Labor Law – which prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee because of certain lawful outside work activities – to include protections for recreational cannabis use. As such, employers are now prohibited from discriminating against employees based on their use of cannabis outside of the workplace, outside of work hours, and where use does not involve the employer’s equipment or property.

Key takeaways from this guidance are discussed below.

Applicability

The guidance makes clear that the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of cannabis use applies to all public and private employers in New York State, regardless of size, industry, or occupation. However, both the MRTA and Section 201-d only apply to employees and the protections therefore do not extend to independent contractors and volunteers.

Moreover, the guidance emphasizes that neither the MRTA nor Section 201-d protect the illegal use, sale, or transportation of cannabis. As such, the laws do not provide cannabis-related protections for employees who are under the age of 21, as they are presently prohibited from using recreational cannabis in New York.

Cannabis Use at Work or During Work Hours

Under the MRTA, employers generally have broad discretion to prohibit cannabis use at the worksite during work hours. The guidance states that employers may also prohibit employees from possessing cannabis at the worksite or otherwise on the employer’s property, including in company vehicles, rented space, and areas used by employees on company property (e.g., lockers, desks). The guidance also states that “work hours” during which employers may prohibit cannabis use include:

  1. Time that an employee is on-call or “expected to be engaged in work;” and
  2. Time, “including paid and unpaid breaks and meal periods, that the employee is suffered, permitted or expected to be engaged in work, and all time the employee is actually engaged in work.”

However, employers cannot prohibit the use of cannabis while employees are on leave unless the employer is permitted to do so pursuant to Section 201-d(4-a), as discussed further in the next section.

Further, the NYDOL does not consider an employee’s private residence used for remote work to be a “worksite” within the meaning of the statute. That said, employers may institute a general policy prohibiting cannabis use during work hours and take adverse action against an employee exhibiting articulable symptoms of impairment (discussed further below), even while an employee is working remotely.

Drug Testing and Other Actions Based on Workplace Impairment

Section 201-d(4-a), as amended by the MRTA, generally prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees for their use of legal cannabis outside of the workplace and outside of working hours work hours, except where:

  1. An employer is required to take such action by state or federal law;
  2. The employer would otherwise be in violation of federal law or would lose a federal contract or federal funding; or
  3. The employee, while working, manifests specific articulable symptoms of impairment that either decrease or lessen the employee’s performance or interfere with the employer’s obligation to provide a health and safe workplace.

Relatedly, the guidance expressly states that employers are also prohibited from drug testing employees for cannabis unless one of the above enumerated exceptions applies.

Further, regarding the second exception, the guidance states that employers may only test an employee for cannabis if a state or federal law requires drug testing or makes it a mandatory requirement of the position. Employers cannot rely upon the second exception to test an employee for cannabis merely because it is allowed or not prohibited by law.

The guidance also provides additional information regarding what is meant by “specific articulable symptoms of impairment.” Under the MRTA, an employer is not prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee if the employee is impaired by cannabis while working, regardless of the employer has adopted an explicit policy prohibiting cannabis use.  According to the guidance, to satisfy the “impairment” standard, employers may only cite “symptoms that provide objectively observable indications that the employee’s performance of the essential duties or tasks of their position are decreased or lessened.” This may include, for example, the operation of heavy machinery in an unsafe or reckless manner.

However, the guidance states that the smell of cannabis, on its own, does not qualify as a “specific articulable symptom of impairment.” Further, a drug test that is positive for cannabis also cannot be used to demonstrate that an employee was impaired by cannabis at work, as such tests do not demonstrate current impairment.

Takeaways

The provisions of the MRTA governing cannabis use and the workplace took effect immediately upon enactment in March 2021. The guidance makes clear that employers are not permitted to maintain previously existing policies that prohibit cannabis use outside of the workplace in violation of the MRTA, unless permitted to do so pursuant to Section 201-d(4-a). Employers should therefore review their workplace policies and practices to ensure compliance with these recent requirements.

Photo of Steven Hurd Steven Hurd

Steve has extensive trial and appellate experience, in both federal and state courts focusing on claims of alleged individual and class discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, FINRA, whistleblowing and retaliation, defamation, fraud, breach of contract, wrongful discharge and other statutory and…

Steve has extensive trial and appellate experience, in both federal and state courts focusing on claims of alleged individual and class discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, FINRA, whistleblowing and retaliation, defamation, fraud, breach of contract, wrongful discharge and other statutory and common law claims. Steve also advises clients on employment litigation avoidance, litigation strategy and alternative forms of dispute resolution.

Steve is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group and Media & Entertainment Industry Group.

Steve helps his clients stay in compliance with the ever-changing employment regulations with respect to FLSA and state law wage and hour requirements by providing advice and conducting comprehensive audits. Steve conducts investigations pertaining to reductions-in-force and individual employee terminations, and claims of gender, race, national origin, and disability discrimination.

Read more about Steven HurdEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Alex Downie Alex Downie
Read more about Alex DownieEmail
Photo of Laura Fant Laura Fant

As a special employment law counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-chair of the Disability, Accommodations & Leave Management Practice Group, Laura Fant frequently counsels on employee leave and accommodation matters involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and…

As a special employment law counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-chair of the Disability, Accommodations & Leave Management Practice Group, Laura Fant frequently counsels on employee leave and accommodation matters involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and related state and local laws. She also provides general employment counseling and has experience reviewing and updating employee handbooks and company policies, as well as providing training on topics such as discrimination and harassment in the workplace, social media, and the accommodation of physical and mental disabilities. Laura is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Law and the Workplace blog.

Before joining the Firm, Laura was assistant general counsel to the City of New York’s Office of Labor Relations. Prior to that, she was law clerk to Judge Jose L. Fuentes of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, and a judicial intern to Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read more about Laura FantEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Law and the Workplace
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The FTI Award Journal
  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo