Employers in New Jersey are already
expected to be in compliance with both of these newly passed laws.
New Mexico SB 406 Passed in March, Senate Bill 406 amended New Mexico’s existing medical marijuana program to include further guidance for employers. Under the adjustments, employers are permited to take adverse employment action against employees that use or are impaired by medical marijuana while at work, or during work hours. Tis adds additional depth to the pre-existing medical marijuana law, which simply stated that employers could not take adverse employment action against employees that engaged in conduct that was permited under the medical marijuana program. Additionally, the law stipulates that:
“Nothing in this section shall…apply to an employee whose employer deems that the employee works in a safety- sensitive position.”
SB 406 goes on to define a “safety-
sensitive position” as a position in which drug or alcohol influence would constitute an immediate or direct threat of injury or death to the employee or other individuals. Tis rather broad definition could include traditional safety-sensitive positions, however, it does not include other positions that employers have been pushing to be added to the safety-sensitive umbrella, such as those employees with access to sensitive data and/or company/ client financial information. Although traditional safety-sensitive positions are likely covered by this definition, because SB 406 does not include a specific list of safety-sensitive positions, employers could still face an uphill batle should a disgruntled ex-employee choose to take them to court, claiming that their position should not have been determined to be a safety-sensitive one.
www.datia.org
Oklahoma HB 2612 Oklahoma House Bill 2612 passed in March 2019 and provides much-needed clarifications on medical marijuana for employers. In a nutshell, HB covers topics from adverse employment actions, to safety-sensitive positions, to workplace drug testing in general. Under HB 2612, employers are
prohibited from refusing to hire, discipline, discharge, or otherwise penalize applicants or employees based solely on their status as medical marijuana cardholders. Additionally, employers are prohibited from doing the same based solely on a medical marijuana cardholder’s positive test for marijuana metabolites/ THC. HB 2612 includes a section which stipulates that these provisions do not apply if the individual in question is in a safety-sensitive position. HB 2612 provides one of the most
comprehensive definitions of a safety- sensitive position that we have seen to date. Te definition of safety-sensitive includes, but is not limited to: positions involving hazardous materials, motor and non-motor vehicles, equipment, machinery, power tools, repairs and maintenance of equipment the malfunction or disrepair of which could result in injury or property damage, firefighting, critical utilities, flammable or combustible materials, pharmaceuticals, positions in which an individual must carry a firearm, and those positions requiring direct patient or child care. Last, HB 2612 modifies Oklahoma’s
mandatory drug and alcohol testing law found in Oklahoma Stat. 40-15-551 to 563. HB 2612 adjusts the law to specify that marijuana testing must be done at the established cutoff levels by the U.S. DOT, or those detailed in Oklahoma law, whichever one is lower. Additionally, OK Stat. 40-15-551 is modified to permit employers to use breath or blood for
alcohol confirmation tests, or urine, saliva, or blood for blood confirmation tests.
Tennessee HB 389 and SB 312
Tennessee House Bill 389 and Senate Bill 312 both adjust Tennessee’s voluntary drug and alcohol testing law found in Tennessee Code Ann. 50-9-101 to 115, adding Medical Review Officer (MRO) requirements to the law. HB 389 and SB 312 both stipulate that, under the voluntary law, an MRO is only permited to consider prescriptions issued in the six months prior to a positive confirmed test result when determining a valid prescription. Tennessee’s voluntary law requires
compliance with many procedures outlined in Part 40; this is likely an addition due to the recent changes to Part 40, which made it so an MRO did not have a validity date according to which they would determine if a prescription was valid for the purposes of overturning a positive test result. Tennessee’s new law took effect immediately upon passage in May 2019 and provides a way for employers who comply with the voluntary law to ensure that their MROs are only reviewing recent prescriptions as a reason for overturning a positive test result, rather than historically issued prescriptions.
Utah HB 16 Passed in March 2019, Utah House Bill 16 pertains to drug test adulterants and workplace drug. HB 16 makes it illegal for individuals to possess, distribute, or sell synthetic urine or other adulterants. Additionally, the law makes it illegal to use an adulterant, pre-expelled urine/ bodily fluids, or the urine/bodily fluids of another individual to defraud or cheat a drug test. HB 16 follows a new trend in legislation in 2018 and 2019, with multiple other states having already reviewed or are
datia focus 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40
