Foley Lardner: Weed in the Workplace: D.C. City Council Approves Bill Resricting Employer Cannabis Testing

13 June 2022

Labor & Employment Law Perspectives  Blog

Author(s): Miranda D. Curtis

Washington, D.C. is poised to join a growing number of state and local jurisdictions that restrict employers from testing employees for cannabis use as a condition of employment. On Tuesday, June 7, the D.C. City Council approved the Cannabis Employment Protections Amendment Act. The bill is pending approval by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and, if signed, will become law after a 60-day congressional review.

Who is Covered by the Bill?

The bill applies to nearly all employers in D.C. except those employing close relatives to perform work around the employer’s household. Likewise, nearly all employees and prospective employees are covered by the bill, including unpaid interns. Excluded from the testing restrictions are those in safety-sensitive positions in which cannabis use could foreseeably cause “actual, immediate, and serious bodily injury or loss of life to self or others.” Such positions include security personnel, certain medical professionals, operators of vehicles and heavy machinery, construction site workers, power or gas utility workers, and those handling hazardous materials.

How Does the Bill Restrict Employers?

Under the bill, employers cannot terminate, suspend, fail to promote, demote, refuse to hire, or otherwise penalize an employee or prospective employee based on their cannabis use, their status as a medical cannabis program patient, or the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in their system without additional factors indicating impairment. Employers must also treat employees’ medical cannabis use the same as any other legal use of a controlled substance prescribed by or taken under the supervision of a licensed healthcare professional.

What Can Employers Do?

Employers can still test and discipline employees for cannabis use in certain situations. For example, employers can test and discipline employees in safety-sensitive positions for cannabis use and can test to comply with their obligations under federal statute, federal regulations, or federal contracts or funding agreements. Employers can also require post-accident and reasonable-suspicion drug testing.

The prohibitions on cannabis testing as a condition of employment do not mean employers must allow cannabis at work; to the contrary, the D.C. bill would allow employers to prohibit cannabis use, consumption, possession, growing, and sale or transfer at work. Employers may also take action against employees who are impaired at work, meaning the employee has specific articulable symptoms while working that substantially decrease the employee’s performance of their duties or interfere with the employer’s ability to provide a safe and healthy workplace as required by law.

The exception to the above is medical cannabis use. However, employers will not be required to allow those in safety-sensitive positions to use medical cannabis at work. Employers also need not permit the use of medical cannabis in a smokable form at their worksite.

Takeaway: Employers Should Review Their Drug Testing Policies for Compliance with State and Local Law

Laws and ordinances restricting employers from making cannabis testing as a condition of employment already exist in several states and localities, including Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia, and Rhode Island. These laws vary in the extent of protections afforded to employees. Some laws, like those in Nevada and Philadelphia, apply only to pre-employment testing. However, several jurisdictions effectively restrict almost all cannabis testing, similar to the bill pending mayoral approval in D.C. This is a rapidly changing area of law, and we expect more jurisdictions to enact similar laws restricting or prohibiting employer testing. Employers should also explore training supervisors on valid methods to observe employee impairment by valid methods other than drug testing. Employers should review their policies for compliance with existing laws and monitor the jurisdictions where they are located for further developments.

Repercussions for employer violations of these types of statutes and ordinances can be steep. For example, the D.C. bill provides for civil fines per violation, lost wages, compensable damages, and attorneys’ fees. Employers with questions about testing employees for cannabis use should consult with experienced employment counsel.

To help navigate the land mines posed by the trend in state and local laws restricting cannabis testing of employees, please join us on June 28, at noon Eastern Time, for our webinar entitled “Cannabis Testing in the Workplace: Navigating the Hazy Landscape,” where a panel of Foley lawyers will be joined by Darrin Grondel of, a national expert on observing and measuring impairment.


You can register by clicking here RSVP.

Author Miranda D. Curtis


Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers

We Support

Cannabis Law Journal – Contributing Authors

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena


Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild