Recreational marijuana is now legal in Michigan and there are already several dispensaries (mostly in Ann Arbor) selling the product. So, what should employers now be doing? Reviewing and revising their drug testing policy!
The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, MCL 333.27951, et seq., specifically provides, in relevant part, the following:
This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer's property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person's violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana.
MCL 333.27954 (3)(emphasis added). As you may know, current testing methods only demonstrate that marijuana is in a person’s system, but they cannot determine whether someone is “under the influence” at the time of the test. Therefore, it is essential for employers to have a policy that prohibits the use of illegal substances, including marijuana which remains unlawful under federal law, and provides for testing.
Without such a policy, employers will have to prove that the employee was under the influence while at work (i.e., blood shot eyes, smelling like marijuana, slurred speech, munchies…). This is often difficult to do.
Federal contractors are required to maintain a drug free workplace, including prohibiting the use of marijuana. But, more importantly, this is a safety and productivity issue for all employers.
I am recommending to most of my clients that they continue to test employees and terminate any employee who tests positive for so long as marijuana remains unlawful under federal law and/or until testing methods improve. Employers who do not have a drug testing policy should adopt one as soon as practicable. These policies should be written by an experienced employment attorney.
In addition, out of fairness to employees, employers who have a policy should alert them that nothing has changed. Testing positive for marijuana, even if smoked or ingested outside of work during non-working hours, will result in the termination of employment.
You don’t want to a good employee to fail a drug test, thinking this is now acceptable, if it’s not according to your company’s policies.
- Senior Attorney
An attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr's clients include Fortune 500 companies, local governments ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Labor Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Employment Agreement
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Title VII
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Workplace Harassment
- Sick Leave
- Unemployment Benefits
- Regulatory Law
- Workers' Compensation
- Minimum Wage
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Civil Rights
- Non-compete Agreements
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Class Actions
- Emergency Information
- Business Risk Management
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Hostile Work Environment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- The Challenge of Wage Claims Under the Equal Pay Act
- Was the bar for Actionable Federal Discrimination Claims Just Lowered?
- Poor Drafting Leads to Poor Results for Arbitration 'Agreement'
- One, Two, Three Strikes You’re OUT… When Dealing With Attendance Rules!
- Failure To Apply Duties Test Results in Ruling Against Employer in Wage Claim Appeal
- MIOSHA Suspends May 24 Rule, Makes COVID-19 Mitigation Measures Discretionary for Non-Health Care Employers
- ‘VACC To Normal’ Means Back to the Office for Michigan Starting May 24
- Michigan Pushes to Pandemic Finish Line by Promoting Double Vaccine Benefit
- Contractual Limitations Periods and Federal Civil Rights Claims
- Remote Work Still Required Amid Covid-19 Surge in Michigan