Why Most OR Employers Will Keep Zero Tolerance Marijuana Policies
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Furthermore, drug tests currently available for marijuana can detect the metabolite from THC from the brownie you ate at a weekend party when you’re pulled for an at-random drug test at work. While not all employers want to squabble about your weekend, they also can’t tell the difference between on- or off-work use.
Because of these uncertainties, “most employers are not changing their policies and are sticking with zero tolerance,” said Ryan Orr, an HR and compliance consultant for the Cascade Employers Association who has been working with employers on this issue. “Employers still don’t have any obligation to allow exceptions to drug testing policy for marijuana because it’s still illegal federally.”
There are some, though, whose persuasion follows Oregon’s majority that voted yes on Measure 91 to legalize marijuana.
“I’ve definitely talked to employers who say, ‘I don’t really care what employees are doing if it’s legal,’” he said, though it depends partly on the industry.
Employers at white-collar jobs don’t tend to care as much as manufacturing employers, who have to worry about safety issues. Many in the manufacturing industry aren’t changing their zero tolerance policies, though a small number are now willing to drop pre-employment testing, reasoning “they’re not working for us yet, there’s no safety issue if they’re not working for us yet,” said Orr.
But there are some employers who now have more flexibility. One example is a resort employer in a small town, who called Orr recently saying he wanted to relax his policy. He knew that some of his employees were likely using marijuana, and he has a hard enough time filling positions. So with Oregon’s decriminalization of marijuana, he decided he had the legal backing to no longer require a pre-employment drug test or random testing. Now, a manager can only test if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is impaired from drug use while at work.
Ultimately, though, federal law still has a lot of sway. “Because federal law hasn’t changed, the Drug Free Workplace Act is still in effect,” said Orr. “Anyone who is a federal contractor or subcontractor is not going to have that flexibility.”
There are also some employers who contract with other companies—usually national or international—who refuse to work with companies that do not have a zero tolerance policy in place.
So if avoiding federal law on marijuana is impossible, does Oregon even have employment laws that could protect marijuana users?
No. Oregon is an “at-will” state, meaning an employer could fire an employee for just about anything as long as they’re not discriminating based on race, sex or sexual orientation or retaliating against a whistleblower. “If you want to, you could fire someone for chewing bubble gum outside of work,” said Orr.
Measure 91, which legalized marijuana, didn’t even attempt to touch workplace laws. In fact, the measure explicitly states that it does not “amend or affect in any way any state or federal law pertaining to employment matters.”
In contrast, Colorado, a state that has also legalized medical and recreational marijuana, had a workplace law with some teeth. It had an off-duty conduct law, which prohibits an employer from firing an employee for doing something that is legal.
It underscores the power the federal law still has despite state’s desire to legalize not only recreational use but medical marijuana use.
In fact, it’s already a settled issue that even holders of a medical marijuana card in the state of Oregon can be at risk for termination at work if an employer wishes.
Medical marijuana use is not included in the Americans with Disabilities Act, so states have largely felt unable to grant it special protections.
In 2005, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) ruled that Emerald Steel Fabricators had unlawfully discriminated against Anthony Scevers, a temporary employee who used medical marijuana. Scevers was offered full-time work subject to passing a drug test, but he told employers that he used medical marijuana. Scevers, an Army vet, was honorably discharged due to “anxiety and stress.” Once Emerald Steel knew about his marijuana use, it denied him employment.
The case made its way to the Oregon Supreme Court, which overturned BOLI’s ruling in 2010. “As a result, employees do not have protection for termination based on marijuana usage including medical marijuana patients,” said Charlie Burr, communication director for BOLI.
Until that ruling, BOLI had investigated a number of medical marijuana cases of discrimination based on disability, but since then, BOLI stopped taking those complaints.
Further complicating the issue is the lack of accurate testing for marijuana impairment. Unlike alcohol breathalyzers, which test blood alcohol levels for current impairment levels, there is no way of knowing for certain whether someone is actually impaired by marijuana when they take a standard urine sample test given by employers.
A standard five-panel urinalysis test detects marijuana, amphetamines/methamphetamines, opiates, PCP and cocaine. But the test is known to show presence of THC up to two weeks after the drug is used, depending on a numerous variables.
Employers are struggling with that, said Orr. Because the test can’t determine whether someone was using on the clock or in their own time, employers can’t be sure employees are telling the truth.
In Oregon, no acceptable threshold for impairment has been set for a DUII yet, though the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is tasked with that responsibility. Both Washington and Colorado have determined intoxication to be 5ng THC/mL of blood. But of course, you can’t really ask for a blood draw in an employment context, said Orr.
Herbert Hill, a chemist at Washington State University, is trying to solve part of the problem by developing an accurate breathalyzer test for THC. Hill has been doing human testing of the technology over the last six months by testing volunteers’ breath both before smoking marijuana and midway through a joint. He says he’s still a long way from a reliable technology.
The technology might make sense not only for cops but for employers, but ultimately the issue will remain hazy unless federal laws are changed.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is fielding questions from employers on this issue on the line, 971-673-0824.
Related Slideshow: Recreational Pot Officially Legal in OR: What State Advocates Have to Say
State and non-profit leaders of the drug reform movement gathered at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to speak about what legal weed means for Oregon, and why it matters.
Related Articles
- Recreational Pot Officially Legal in OR: What State Advocates Have to Say
- Ten Things You Need to Know Now That Pot is Legal in Oregon
- How Will Pot Advertising in Oregon Differ from Tobacco?
- Oregon Fines, Closes Pot Shops
- Police Find 68 Pounds of Pot in Vehicle After Traffic Stop
- The Herbery Becomes Vancouver’s First Pot Dispensary to Open 2nd Location
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It