The New Jersey statute legalizing marijuana provides that an employer cannot terminate an employee solely for the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in an individual’s bodily fluids. The statute further provides that a Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert (“WIRE”), should be utilized by employers to determine if an employee is impaired. However, the certification procedures and standards for a WIRE have not yet been issued.
The guidance states that, in order to demonstrate physical signs or other evidence of impairment sufficient to support an adverse employment action against an employee for suspected cannabis use or impairment during the employee’s prescribed work hours, the employer may:
- Designate an interim staff member to assist with making determinations of suspected cannabis use during the employee’s prescribed work hours. This employee should be sufficiently trained to determine impairment and qualified; the guidance does not define “sufficiently trained and qualified,” to complete the Reasonable Suspicion Observation Report, addressed below. Additionally, an employer may hire a third-party contractor to make such a determination.
- Utilize a uniform Reasonable Suspicion Observation Report, the link for a form was provided in the guidance, however, an employer can also use their own form, that documents the behavior, physical signs, and evidence that supports the employer’s determination that an employee is reasonably suspected of being under the influence during an employee’s prescribed work hours.
The employer should establish a standard operating procedure for completing such a report that includes:
- The employee’s manager or supervisor or an employee at the manager or supervisor level; and
- An interim staff member that has been designated to assist with determining whether an employee is reasonably suspected of being impaired during an employee’s prescribed work hours, or a second manager or supervisor.
- Use a cognitive impairment test, a scientifically valid, objective, consistently repeatable, a standardized automated test of an employee’s impairment, and or an ocular scan, as physical signs or evidence to establish reasonable suspicion of cannabis use or impairment at work.
Please note that there is a disclaimer at the end of the guidance, which is as follows:
“The purpose of this guidance is to clarify and explain the NJCRC‘s understanding of the existing legal requirements under the governing law. This guidance does not impose any additional requirements that are not included in the law and does not establish additional rights for any person or entity. Please note, however, that adverse employment actions may impact employees’ protected rights under various laws including, but not limited to, state and federal anti-discrimination laws. When incorporating this guidance, the employer should ensure compliance with all state and federal employment laws.”
If you are an employer and need help navigating employee cannabis testing, contact Tracy Armstrong or any member of the Wilentz Employment Law Team.
Tags: Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act • Employee’s Use of Medical Marijuana • Employment Law Update
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.