[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-298330-105":59,"doc-detail-298330-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","employment-rights-for-cannabis-consumers-california-senate-labor-and-public-employment-and-retirement-committee-november-8-2019","Employment Rights for Cannabis Consumers - California Senate Labor and Public Employment and Retirement Committee - November 8, 2019","","Addresses employment protections for medical and recreational cannabis consumers under California and broader U.S. law. Reviews key court and legislative developments, including limitations from California Supreme Court and failed state bills, and summarizes survey findings from over 500 respondents. Lists states and courts recognizing workers’ rights, covers workers’ compensation issues, and highlights new protections in state and city statutes, then outlines federal drug-testing and drug-free workplace requirements.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/employment-rights-for-cannabis-consumers-california-senate-labor-and-public-employment-and-retirement-committee-november-8-2019/298330/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/employment-rights-for-cannabis-consumers-california-senate-labor-and-public-employment-and-retirement-committee-november-8-2019/298330.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"นรินทร์","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why doesn’t current California law protect employment rights for cannabis consumers?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The California Supreme Court held in Ross v. RagingWire that employees can be terminated for off-the-job medical cannabis use. Subsequent legislative efforts, including AB 2279, were vetoed, and Prop. 64 did not extend protection to employment rights for medical or recreational users.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the Cal NORML survey indicate about employment outcomes for medical cannabis users?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Among over 500 respondents, nearly 20% reported being denied employment after testing positive, and over 9% reported being terminated for the same reason. The survey also found many feared losing opportunities and reduced or changed cannabis use due to drug testing.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which types of workers’ rights and legal protections are discussed beyond California?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The document lists many states and DC that protect medical marijuana employment rights, describes specific court decisions that protect workers, and includes workers’ compensation rulings. It also summarizes state and city laws creating new protections for recreational users and references federal drug-testing and drug-free workplace rules.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},298330,1789754882,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},2336475104957,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000c4c6bd8a5076e1?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1787554080175789136","Employment Rights for Cannabis Consumers  \nCalifornia Senate Labor, Public  \nEmployment and Retirement Committee  \nNovember 8, 2019  \nEllen Komp  \nDeputy Director: California National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Cal NORML)  \nCurrent California Law Does Not Protect Employment Rights of Medical or Recreational Cannabis Consumers  \n􀂖 The California Supreme Court ruled in Ross v. RagingWire (2008) that employees can be terminated for off-the-job medical cannabis use, despite Prop.  \n215, which legalized medical marijuana in 1996.  \n􀂖 In response to the RagingWire case, California legislature passed AB 2279 (Leno, 2008) to protect employment rights for medical marijuana users, but the bill was vetoed by Gov . Schwarzenegger .  \n􀂖 Prop. 64, passed by CA voters in 2016 to legalize adult use of cannabis, did not protect employment rights of recreational or medical cannabis users .  \n􀂖 AB 2069 ( Bonta, 2018) would have amended CA’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to require employers to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees who use medical cannabis, in the way they do for prescription drugs .  \nCal NORML Survey Results  \nOf over 500 respondents who answered Cal NORML’s online survey in the past two years:  \n􀂖 Nearly 20% said they had been denied employment because they tested positive for medical cannabis, with another 7% answering “maybe/unsure .”  \n􀂖 Over 9% said they had been terminated from a job because they tested positive for medical cannabis (another 4.4% were unsure) .  \n􀂖 47% were afraid of losing an employment opportunity due to using medical cannabis .  \n􀂖 40% had stopped using medical cannabis because of drug testing by their employer or doctor .  \n􀂖 23% had increased their use of opioid or other medications because of drug testing for cannabis (another 6% were unsure) .  \nSixteen States + DC Now Protect Medical Marijuana Users’ Employment Rights  \nArizona  \nArkansas  \nConnecticut  \nDelaware  \nDC (2019) Illinois  \nMaine*  \nMassachusetts  \nMinnesota  \nNevada*  \nNew Jersey (2019)  \nNew Mexico (2019)  \nNew York  \nOklahoma (2019)  \nPennsylvania  \nRhode Island  \nWest Virginia  \n*also protects recreational users  \nSix State Courts Have Protected Medical Cannabis Users Workers’ Rights  \n􀂖 2017: Connecticut, Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company, LLC –“A plaintiff who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes in compliance with Connecticut law may maintain a cause of action against an employer who refuses to employ her for this reason.”  \n􀂖 2017: Massachusetts, Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing LLC – Employee may sue an employer for being fired for their off-the-job cannabis use without discussing a “reasonable accommodation” with the employee.  \n􀂖 2018: Rhode Island, Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics and the Moore Company – A medical cannabis patient cannot be denied employment over his/her failure to pass a pre-employment drug screen  \n􀂖 2018: Delaware, Chance v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co. -A terminated employee can proceed with his lawsuit, alleging that his employer terminated him for being a medical marijuana cardholder.  \n􀂖 2019: Arizona, Whitmire v. Walmart Stores Incorporated – An employee may not be terminated solely for testing positive for carboxy-THC  \n􀂖 2019: New Jersey, Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings LLC – Employers may not discriminate against patients who consume medical cannabis while away from the job  \nWorkers’ Compensation and Cannabis  \n􀂖 Other states are protecting workers’ compensation rights  \n􀂖 2019: Oklahoma, Rose v. Berry Plastics Corp appellate court held that THC in a workers’ blood after a workplace accident did not automatically mean the worker was intoxicated and denied workers comp benefits.  \n􀂖 2019: New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a labor appeals board incorrectly decided that workers’compensation insurance can’t reimburse employees for medical cannabis costs, leaving the issue open. Appeal of Andrew Panaggio, March 7, 2019.  \n􀂖 A New Jersey administr","cbCaiu4BXevyJ0Cg","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiu4BXevyJ0Cg","pdf",1402512,13,"English","# Current California Law Does Not Protect Employment Rights of Medical or Recreational Cannabis Consumers\n## Cal NORML Survey Results\n# Sixteen States + DC Now Protect Medical Marijuana Users’ Employment Rights\n# Six State Courts Have Protected Medical Cannabis Users Workers’ Rights\n# Workers’ Compensation and Cannabis\n# New Protections for Recreational Cannabis Users in State and City Laws\n# Federal law and drug testing / drug-free workplace requirements","[{\"question\":\"Why doesn’t current California law protect employment rights for cannabis consumers?\",\"answer\":\"The California Supreme Court held in Ross v. RagingWire that employees can be terminated for off-the-job medical cannabis use. Subsequent legislative efforts, including AB 2279, were vetoed, and Prop. 64 did not extend protection to employment rights for medical or recreational users.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Cal NORML survey indicate about employment outcomes for medical cannabis users?\",\"answer\":\"Among over 500 respondents, nearly 20% reported being denied employment after testing positive, and over 9% reported being terminated for the same reason. The survey also found many feared losing opportunities and reduced or changed cannabis use due to drug testing.\"},{\"question\":\"Which types of workers’ rights and legal protections are discussed beyond California?\",\"answer\":\"The document lists many states and DC that protect medical marijuana employment rights, describes specific court decisions that protect workers, and includes workers’ compensation rulings. It also summarizes state and city laws creating new protections for recreational users and references federal drug-testing and drug-free workplace rules.\"}]","Employment Rights for Cannabis Consumers - California Senate Labor and Public Employment and Retirement Committee - November 8, 2019 | PDF",33]