What Employers Need to Know About Legal Marijuana in Illinois
Time 3 Minute Read
What Employers Need to Know About Legal Marijuana in Illinois

Illinois joined the growing list of states to legalize marijuana as of January 1, 2020.  Employers with employees in Illinois should consider how the new law may affect their business, and review their policies to ensure compliance with the statute.

As an initial matter, state legalization will not affect employees in certain job positions.  The Illinois law states that corrections officers, law enforcement officers and several other public employees cannot use marijuana, even when they are off-duty.  In addition, employees with commercial drivers’ licenses subject to federal Department of Transportation regulations will remain subject to federal restrictions.

In December 2019, in response to employer concerns, Illinois amended its legalization legislation to attempt to ensure that legalized marijuana did not restrict an employer’s ability to impose zero-tolerance policies for drug use or impairment at work.  Under 410 ILCS 705 10-50, an employer may adopt drug-free workplace policies concerning “drug testing, smoking, consumption, storage or use of cannabis in the workplace or while on call provided that the policy is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.”

Determining whether an employee is impaired at work can be difficult, however, because there are no reliable instant tests to determine whether someone is currently under the influence.  Under the statute, employers must possess a “good faith belief” that employees are under the influence of marijuana to issue discipline, and the statute specifically lists altered speech, coordination, agility, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, negligence or carelessness in operation of equipment or disregard for safety rules as potential evidence of impairment.  Further, if an employer elects to discipline an employee based on one of these rationales, the statute requires the employer to allow the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the employer’s basis for its determination that the employee was impaired.

The December amendment to the Illinois law also clarified that employees will not have a cause of action against an employer if they are terminated or disciplined because of a failed drug test pursuant to a “reasonable workplace drug policy, including but not limited to subjecting the employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing.”  But the statute is not clear on what qualifies as a reasonable policy or testing protocol.  If employers elect to continue to test for marijuana, they should outline their policy clearly and apply it consistently.

Employers with collective bargaining agreements covering Illinois employees should consider entering into side letters or memoranda of understanding with unions with respect to positive tests for marijuana.  It is reasonable to expect unions to vigorously defend disciplinary penalties issued merely for positive marijuana tests given the legal status in the state and the difficulty of discerning whether a positive test indicates an employee conducted work while impaired.

In general, employers should review their policies and confirm they are taking a reasonable, measured approach to drug policy enforcement in Illinois.  It is clear that certain classes of employees may still be subject to zero tolerance, and that applicants or employees in other jobs may still face discipline for testing positive for marijuana.  (This makes Illinois’s law unique from Nevada’s new law, which prevents employers from denying employment to applicants based on pre-employment positive tests for marijuana.)  But for current employees in fields outside of those limited by statute or federal law, the law suggests an employer should be prepared with documentary evidence to support a claim that it disciplined or terminated an employee for suspected impairment on the job, and provided an opportunity for the employee to contest the finding.

  • Partner

    Bob’s practice focuses on representing and advising employers in complex labor relations and employment planning and disputes, including trade secrets/non-compete controversies and wage and hour. Bob has obtained numerous ...

  • Associate

    Reilly counsels employers on labor-management relations, OSHA compliance and complex employment law issues. Reilly has worked on multiple union organizing campaigns and counseled employers through the representation ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 1 Minute Read

Join our Hunton Labor and Employment team as they discuss how to plan and defend drug testing policies in the current legal landscape. 

Time 4 Minute Read

The Texas Supreme Court has issued an opinion holding that “third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients’ employees.”  Houston Area Safety Council, Inc, v. Mendez, 671 S.W.3d 580, 590 (Tex. 2023) (“Mendez”).  In a positive development for employers that drug test their employees, the Mendez opinion also supports prior Texas Supreme Court precedent that employers who conduct in-house drug testing do not owe a duty to employees.  Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003) (“Solomon”).  In other words, it logically follows that if an employer does not owe a duty to employees for results of drug tests administered in-house, a third-party tester hired by that employer does not owe a legal duty to employees for drug tests. 

Time 2 Minute Read

On September 18, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2188, which prohibits employer discrimination based on employees’ use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace.  While recreational use of cannabis, or marijuana, has been legal in California since 2016, the new law goes farther in specifically providing protections for employees who consume the substance.  AB 2188 makes California the most recent state to provide workplace protections for use of marijuana away from the workplace.  The bill will become effective beginning January 1, 2024.

Time 4 Minute Read

Lost in the weeds of recent COVID-19 news is the increasing number of states and localities that have legalized medicinal and recreational use of marijuana.  Such legalization brings with it varying degrees of worker protections and employer obligations.  Philadelphia, PA and the state of Montana are two of the latest jurisdictions to add their names to the sprouting list of jurisdictions that protect not only medical use, but also recreational use of marijuana.  These protections will undoubtedly usher in a new wave of test cases and compliance questions, particularly as many workplaces shift to remote models.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page