Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Assembly Bill 2355 (California)


As with many employment and labor as related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Under California law as currently written, employers in the state have no duty to accommodate the medical use of marijuana at work, even if the marijuana is legally prescribed for a disability.  Employers in the state may also lawfully choose to not hire an applicant that tests positive for marijuana.  That could soon change.

Earlier this year, Assembly Bill 2355 (“AB 2355”) was introduced in the California Legislature, which seeks to prevent employers in the state from refusing to hire or employ any person (or discriminate against a person) because that person is a medical marijuana user.  As well, employees that use medical marijuana while employed would have the same rights to reasonable accommodations and the associated interactive process as those employees that are prescribed other legal drugs.

The legislation does have a few carveouts as employer’s would be exempt from AB 2355 if:  The employer requires its employees or applicants to be drug and alcohol for legitimate safety reasons as mandated by state or federal law; retaining the employee would reasonably cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit or incur damages under a federal law or regulation; the employer determined the employee was using or was impaired by the use of the medical marijuana at work or during work hours.

Currently, AB 2355 is in committee, with no relevant movement since mid March.  It would not surprise me if AB 2355 faltered this legislative session but was given another look sometime down the road.


For additional information:  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2355

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more