Alabama

None known.

Patients generally could not be denied organ transplants or other medical care on the basis of medical cannabis. (Medical cannabis “is considered the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication used at the direction of a licensed healthcare professional and may not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a registered qualified patient from such needed medical care.”)

The law does not “prohibit or limit the ability of any employer from establishing or enforcing a drug testing policy.” It allows the Department of Human Resources to consider a person’s “use of medical cannabis as a factor for determining the welfare of a child” when determining the best interests of a child for child custody, if there is evidence of neglect or abuse, and in reference to fostering and adoption.

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.”

“Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana (1) in any place of employment …”

Arizona

In State v. Maestas, a state Supreme Court found the legislature violated the Voter Protection Act by trying to ban cannabis at colleges.

Registered patients and caregivers are not subject to “penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board” for the permissible conduct.

Discrimination by schools, landlords, and employers is generally prohibited, as well as discrimination in respect to 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.”

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.

Arkansas

None known.

Registered patients may not “be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege, including without limitation a civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business, occupational, or 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.”

The protections do not require employers to accommodate ingestion in a workplace or an employee working under the influence. Landlords are not required to permit consumption by smoking in a leased property.

California

In Ross v. Ragingwire, the state Supreme Court ruled that the law does not protect patients from firing for testing positive for metabolites. It noted that the legislature could enact such protections.

In 2015, Gov. Brown signed into law a bill to prevent organ transplants from being denied based solely on a person’s status as a medical marijuana patient or a patient’s positive test for medical marijuana, except as noted to the right.

Also, the adult-use law voters approved in 2016 includes parental protections: “The status and conduct of a qualified patient … shall not, by itself, be used to restrict or abridge custodial or parental rights to minor children in any action or proceeding under the jurisdiction of family or juvenile court.”

The law does not require accommodation “on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment or on the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained.”

The organ protections do not apply “to the extent that the qualified patient’s use of medical marijuana has been found by a physician and surgeon, following a case-by-case evaluation of the potential recipient, to be medically significant to the provision of the anatomical gift.”

Colorado

In Coats v. DISH Network, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against a paralyzed patient who sued after being terminated for off-hours medical marijuana use.

Colorado’s law says, “the use of medical marijuana is allowed under state law” to the extent it is carried out in accordance with the state constitution, statutes, and regulations. Mr. Coats’ attorney unsuccessfully argued the state’s “Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute,” which protects employees from being penalized for legal outside-of-work behavior, protected his medical cannabis use.

Col. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14. (10) (b) specifies “Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place.”

Connecticut

Noffsinger v. SSN Niantic Operating Co. LLC (D. Conn 2018) found federal law doesn’t preempt employee protections.

The law says patients and caregivers should not be “denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, being subject to any disciplinary action by a professional licensing board” for the permitted conduct. It also includes protections from discrimination based on one’s status as a patient or caregiver by landlords, employers, and schools.

The protections from discrimination include an exception for if it is “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding.” The law does not “restrict an employer's ability to discipline an employee for being under the influence of intoxicating substances during work hours.” Patients cannot use marijuana on any school grounds, including in dorms or other college property.

Delaware

In December 2018, a Superior Court judge ruled the state’s protections weren’t preempted by federal law and a fired patient could pursue a lawsuit. (Chance v. Kraft Heinz)

Registered patients and caregivers may not be denied “any right or privilege” or be subject to “disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau ” for the permissible conduct. The law prohibits discrimination by schools, landlords, and employers, as well as discrimination in respect to organ transplants, other medical care, and custody or visitation, unless an exception applies. Employers generally cannot penalize patients for a positive drug test for marijuana.

The prohibitions on discrimination by employers, landlords, and schools 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 regulation.” Employers may penalize patient-employees for a failed drug test if they used, possessed, or were impaired by cannabis at or during work. No one may undertake “any task under the influence of marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.”

District of Columbia

None known.

“Notwithstanding any other District law, a qualifying patient may possess and administer medical marijuana, and possess and use paraphernalia, in accordance with this act and the rules issued pursuant to section 14.”

“Nothing in this act permits a person to: (1) Undertake any task under the influence of medical marijuana when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice …”

Florida

None known.

“The medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient or caregiver in compliance with this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law.”

The law does not allow “on-site medical use of marijuana in any correctional institution or detention facility or place of education or employment, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place.”

Hawaii

In Lambdin v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Group, a federal District court ruled in favor of Marriott, which terminated an employee who tested positive for medical marijuana. (2017)

In 2015, a bill was enacted to ban discrimination against medical marijuana patients and caregivers by schools, landlords, and condominiums and to prevent discrimination in medical care and parental rights.

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.

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.

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.”

Louisiana

None known.

N/A immunity from prosecution

Maine

None known.

Individuals whose conduct is 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.”

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.

Maryland

None known.

The law protects qualifying patients, caregivers, and others involved in the medical cannabis program from “any civil or administrative penalty, including a civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, or be denied any right or privilege” when acting in accordance with the law.

The law does not allow anyone to undertake “any task under the influence of marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.” It allows landlords and condominiums to restrict marijuana smoking.

Massachusetts

In Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, the Supreme Judicial Court of Mass. found the Commonwealth’s anti-discrimination law applies to handicapped employees who use medical cannabis. It found the employer has an obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.

The intent includes “ that there should be no punishment under state law for “patients, caregivers, health care staff, and dispensaries and their staff.” Individuals meeting the law’s requirements shall not be “penalized under Massachusetts law in any manner, or denied any right or privilege.” Under Mass. law, handicapped employees have the right to reasonable accommodation.

“Nothing in this law requires any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of employment, school bus or on school grounds, in any youth center, in any correctional facility, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place.”

In Casias vs. Wal-Mart, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District ruled against a registered medical marijuana patient who sued Wal-Mart for terminating his employment for testing positive for marijuana.

Those abiding by the act cannot 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. In addition, “a person shall not 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.”

The law does not allow any person to “undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.” Employers are not required “to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.”

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.

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.

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.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a patient who tested positive for marijuana metabolites in Johnson v. Columbia Falls Aluminum.
As a memorandum opinion, it was not binding precedent.

The law provides that those abiding by the act “may not be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner or be denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board or the department of labor and industry” for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the act.

The law does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, a school to allow patients to participate in extracurricular activities, or a landlord to allow medical marijuana cultivation or use. Employers may prohibit medical marijuana, and it does not provide a cause of action for discrimination. Cultivation requires a landlord’s written permission.

In 2018, a Clark County District Court rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Sunrise Hospital’s termination of a nurse for testing positive for medical marijuana. The case is pending.

“A professional licensing board shall not take any disciplinary action against a person licensed by the board” for engaging in the medical use of marijuana or acting as a caregiver.

An employer must “attempt to make reasonable accommodations for the medical needs” of patients who are employees, unless the accommodation would “(a) Pose a threat of harm or danger to persons or property or impose an undue hardship on the employer; or (b) Prohibit the employee from fulfilling any and all of his or her job responsibilities.”

In November 2019, a former employee of Ride-Away, Inc. sued for employment discrimination, based upon the defendant’s failure to make reasonable accommodations for his disability (which involved using medical cannabis for PTSD during non-work hours). Although a trial court ruled against the plaintiff arguing that, “the use of therapeutic cannabis prescribed in accordance with New Hampshire law cannot, as a matter of law, be a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability,” the ruling was reversed and remanded by the state Supreme Court in January 2022.

“For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a qualifying patient’s authorized use of cannabis in accordance with this chapter shall be considered the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication … and shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance.” Further, “a person otherwise entitled to custody of, or visitation or parenting time with, a minor shall not be denied such a right solely for conduct allowed under this chapter, and there shall be no presumption of neglect or child endangerment.”

The law does not require “any accommodation of the therapeutic use of cannabis on the property or premises of any place of employment.” It also does not “limit an employer’s ability to discipline an employee for ingesting cannabis in the workplace or for working while under the influence of cannabis.”

None known subsequent to clearer anti-discrimination protections being added to the law in 2019.

For purposes of medical care, medical cannabis “shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify a qualifying patient from needed medical care.”

“It shall be unlawful to take any adverse employment action against an employee who is a registered qualifying patient based solely on the employee’s status as a registrant with the commission. If an employer has a drug testing policy and an employee or job applicant tests positive for cannabis, the employer shall offer the employee or job applicant an opportunity to present a legitimate medical explanation for the positive test result …”

Schools and those who rent or lease 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.”

The limitations for schools, employers, landlords, and professional licensing do not apply if they would result in the entity “losing a monetary or licensing-related benefit granted pursuant to federal law.”

The employment protections may not be deemed to “restrict an employer’s ability to prohibit, or take adverse employment action for, the possession or use of intoxicating substances during work hours or on the premises of the workplace outside of work hours.”

No reported decisions since explicit employment protections were enacted in 2019. However, a nurse sued after his employer,
Valleywise Medical Center, said he would not be allowed to use medical cannabis. In March 2020, the hospital modified its drug policy, allowing state-legal medical cannabis use.

Employers generally may not take “adverse employment action against an applicant or an employee” for state-legal medical cannabis-related conduct.

Participation in the medical cannabis program is not, in itself, grounds for “intervention, removal or placement into state custody” of a child. A person “shall not be denied custody of or visitation or parenting time with a child, and there is no 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.

The employment protections do not apply to “safety-sensitive positions.”

Employers may continue to take action “for use of, or being impaired by, [marijuana] on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.”

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.

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.”

None known.

Patients are not subject to arrest, 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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.”

In 2010, the state Supreme Court ruled in Emerald Steel v. BOLI that patients are not protected from being fired for testing positive for metabolites.

“No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or take other disciplinary action against a licensee based on the licensee’s medical use of marijuana,” pursuant to state law.

“When evaluating an applicant, a landlord may not consider the possession of a medical marijuana card or status as a medical marijuana patient.”

“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.”

In 2019, the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County ruled the state’s medical cannabis law includes an implicit right of action for wrongful termination and allowed a patient’s lawsuit to proceed. (Pamela Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health Systems Inc., et al.)

“No employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee” based on an employee’s status as a medical cannabis patient. An action in accordance with the medical marijuana law “shall not by itself be considered by a court in a custody proceeding.” State agencies will promulgate rules regarding marijuana possession at schools and daycares.

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.

In Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corp., the Superior Court ruled an employer could not refuse to hire an intern who was a state-legal medical marijuana patient even if she wouldn’t pass a drug test.

Patients and caregivers abiding by the act 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 the medical use of marijuana. Also, “no school, employer, or landlord may refuse to enroll, employ, or lease to or otherwise penalize a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” Further, “for the purposes of medical 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.”

The law does not allow “any person to undertake any task under the influence of marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice …”

In addition, “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require: … an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.”

None known.

“A cardholder is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty of any kind, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau…”

“Except as provided in this Act, a registered qualifying patient who uses cannabis for a medical purpose shall be afforded all the same rights under state and local law, as the person would be afforded if the person were solely prescribed a pharmaceutical medication, as it pertains to:

(1) Any interaction with a person's employer;

(2) Drug testing by a person's employer; or

(3) Drug testing required by any state or local law, agency, or government official.”

“No employer is required to allow the ingestion of cannabis in any workplace or to allow any employee to work while under the influence of cannabis. A registered qualifying patient may not be considered to be under the influence of cannabis solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of cannabis that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.”

“Nothing in this Act prohibits an employer from disciplining an employee for ingesting cannabis in the workplace or for working while under the influence of cannabis.”

None known.

Registered healthcare providers and patients are protected from criminal and civil liability, provided they comply with the law. Patients may not be denied access to organ transplants. “A state or political subdivision employee who has a valid medical cannabis card is not subject to adverse action” for testing positive for THC or cannabis “without evidence that the employee was impaired or otherwise adversely affected in the employee's job performance due to the use of medical cannabis unless an exception applies.”

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.

The protection from discipline for failing a drug test does not apply if failing to take action against the employee “would jeopardize federal funding, a federal security clearance, or any other federal background determination required for the employee's position, or if the employee's position is dependent on a license that is subject to federal regulations.”

Private employers do not have to accommodate medical cannabis.

None known.

The patient and caregiver protections in the medical marijuana law are from criminal penalties.

The law does not exempt patients from arrest or 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.”

None known.

“It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess marijuana unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act.”

N/A

In 2011, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in favor of an employer who was sued after terminating a medical marijuana patient (Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management).

Medical marijuana cannot be the “sole disqualifying factor” for an organ transplant unless it could cause rejection or organ failure, though a patient could be required to abstain before or during the transplant. The law also limits when parental rights and residential time can be limited due to the medical use of marijuana.

“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.

None known.

“No employer may discharge, 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.

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.