Pre-Employment Cannabis Testing: Is It Still Worth It?

14 February 2022 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Patrick J. McMahon

For years, most employers and employees alike assumed a clean drug test was a pre-requisite for getting hired. These pre-employment drug testing panels included a list of illegal drugs, and almost always included Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the key psychoactive compound found in cannabis. But the times have changed as it relates to cannabis—from both social and legal perspectives. These changes beg the question: is it even worth testing for cannabis still? Perhaps even more concerning, is such testing even legal?

In addition to medical cannabis being legal in 37 states, recreational cannabis is now legal in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Considering that just 10 years ago there were only two states with legal recreational cannabis, it is not hard to see where the trend is heading. Perhaps recognizing this trend and more commonplace usage, certain jurisdictions have adopted protections for employee candidates surrounding drug testing, including outright bans on testing for cannabis. For example, New York City prohibits all employers from requiring employment candidates to submit to testing for THC. Most recently, Philadelphia enacted a similar law effective January 1, 2022, prohibiting employers from requiring job applicants to submit to cannabis testing. At the state level, Nevada has prohibited pre-employment cannabis testing since January 2020.

Setting aside these explicit prohibitions surrounding testing, though, there are some practical considerations as well. As we previously discussed, there are risks in states like Illinois for discriminating against recreational cannabis users because cannabis is now a “lawful product” under Illinois law. Other states like New York and New Jersey protect off-duty cannabis use even more broadly. There can be real consequences for violating these protections, too. Amazon recently settled a proposed class action alleging it discriminated against New Jersey recreational cannabis users. Amazon also dropped cannabis from its drug screening shortly after this suit was filed. And while these statutory protections are notable, employers that require testing would still feel the impacts of legalized cannabis in other respects. One Illinois employment agency noted that an astounding 40% of recent applicants had failed drug tests for cannabis use. In an era of a generally contracted employee pool, that can lead to a prohibitively small group of candidates.

So with all these factors in mind, is testing for cannabis even worth it? Of course, the answer is not a “one-size-fits-all” issue. The decision will depend on a number of factors including some exceptions to statutory prohibitions on testing listed above, laws requiring drug testing for certain jobs, and position-specific questions surrounding job duties (e.g., desk job versus operating heavy machinery). Still, what many employers may have considered as a best practice for years is one that should be reconsidered in light of these rapid developments. Foley’s Labor & Employment Group, with the support of Foley’s Cannabis Law Team, is ready to help employers navigate this ever-evolving landscape.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services