California law says a candidate may be denied employment if he or she tests positive for marijuana. (Courtesy photo)

California law says a candidate may be denied employment if he or she tests positive for marijuana. (Courtesy photo)

Prescribed marijuana vs. workplace drug testing

This week’s question comes from Amy T. in San Mateo, who asks:

Q: I take medical marijuana to help me with my anxiety and am applying for a new job. I don’t drive a bus or engage in any hazardous work, such as an equipment operator, police officer or fireman. I am a secretary and the employer says part of the application process is a drug test. They also say that I can be subject to randomized drug tests. Can they refuse to employ me or fire me if I have a prescription for medical marijuana and show up positive on a test?”

A: Amy, his is a good question that I have had to address previously on behalf of a prospective client. On one hand, your anxiety may qualify as a disability — a condition, disease or process that limits one or more major life activities. Anxiety disorders are among the class of conditions that may qualify as a legal disability.

If an individual is disabled, yet still can perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without an accommodation, an employer must engage in a good-faith interactive process to see if a reasonable accommodation can be identified. An employer must provide that accommodation unless doing so would create an undue hardship on the enterprise. In determining whether an undue hardship would be created, the nature of the job and the available corporate resources are balanced against the right to an accommodation.

While the Compassionate Use Act gave marijuana the same status as any legal prescription drug, the act’s effect is not so broad. The courts have held that “no state law could completely legalize marijuana for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law.” (Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 920, 926; citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 844(a))

An employer can require prospective employees to undergo testing for illegal drugs and alcohol and the employer can have access to the test results without violating California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. (Civ.Code, § 56 et seq.) (Loder v. City of Glendale, supra, 14 Cal. 4th 846.)

The Loder Court held that “employers may deny employment to persons who test positive for illegal drugs.” The employer, we explained, was “seeking information that [was] relevant to its hiring decision and that it legitimately may ascertain.” The court held that the employer’s interest was legitimate “in light of the well-documented problems that are associated with the abuse of drugs and alcohol by employees — increased absenteeism, diminished productivity, greater health costs, increased safety problems and potential liability to third parties, and more frequent turnover…”

Although California voters had no power to change federal law, certainly they were free to disagree with Congress’ assessment of marijuana, and they also were free to view the possibility of beneficial medical use as a sufficient basis for exempting from criminal liability, under state law, patients whose physicians recommend the drug. The logic of this position, however, did not compel the voters to take the additional step of requiring employers to accommodate marijuana use by their employees. The voters were entitled to change the criminal law without also speaking to employment law. (Ross v. RagingWire. at 931.)

The Ross court stated that “the operative provisions of the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Saf.Code, § 11362.5) do not speak to employment law.” Except in their treatment of physicians, who are protected not only from “punish[ment]” but also from being “denied any right or privilege … for having recommended marijuana,” the act’s operative provisions speak exclusively to the criminal law.

So Amy, the status of California law is that you may be denied employment if you test positive for THC. The Compassionate Use Act protects you from arrest but not termination. Your options are limited. You can speak openly and honestly with a potential employer about your ability to pass a test or you can seek alternative employment at a location where they do not screen employees.

Christopher B. Dolan is owner of the Dolan Law Firm. Email questions to

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at

Just Posted

A warning notice sits under the windshield wiper of a recreational vehicle belonging to a homeless man named David as it sits parked on De Wolf Street near Alemany Boulevard on Friday, Aug. 31, 2018. A proposed SF Municipal Transportation Agency law would make it illegal for overnight parking on the side street for vehicles taller than seven feet or longer than 22 feet. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Fight over ‘poverty tows’ heats up

‘What can we do to ensure the vehicle stays in the hands of the owner?’

Crab fisherman Skip Ward of Marysville casts his crab net out off a pier near Fort Point. (Craig Lee/Special to The	Examiner)
San Francisco came back to life, and we captured it all

Last spring, in the early days of the pandemic, the bestselling authors… Continue reading

Revelers at Madrone Art Bar in the early hours of June 15, 2021 (Courtesy Power Quevedo).
No social distancing at Motown-themed dance party

‘I don’t care how anyone feels, I just want to dance!’

Azikiwee Anderson of Rize Up Bakery pulls and twists sourdough into shape on Wednesday, June 2, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
San Francisco’s Rize Up Bakery serving up sourdough with a call to action

Azikiwee Anderson wakes up most mornings just before dawn to start cooking… Continue reading

<em>The San Francisco Peace Pagoda stands tall in between Japan Center East and West malls.</em>
 (Ida Mojadad/The Examiner)
Patrons return to the Japantown mall

‘We’re so happy—it’s really hard to make a profit’

Most Read