Support through your toughest HR challenges: A network of 285,000 HR professionals.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Voters in the November 8, 2016, general election in the state of Florida approved the Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative. The initiative required a supermajority vote to pass, with at least 60 percent of voters voting in support of a state constitutional amendment. The provision became part of the Florida Constitution at Article X, Section 29. The constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 29(e)) expressly provides that "[n]othing in this section shall limit the legislature from enacting laws consistent with this section."
On June 9, a bill was sent to Gov. Rick Scott for his signature (SB 8-A). The Florida House of Representatives passed the bill 103–9 before the Senate voted 29–6 in favor of the bill. Scott said he "absolutely" intends to sign the medical marijuana bill passed by the state legislature. The bill will be effective upon Scott's signing the bill, and will take effect upon becoming a law. The amendment states that laws must be in place by July 3 and enacted by October. Scott should be able to sign the bill ahead of the first deadline.
While many aspects of the bill have been reported on, the most important section of the bill for Florida employers has received scant attention. Section 381.986 of the Florida Statutes has been amended to provide:
This section does not limit the ability of an employer to establish, continue or enforce a drug-free workplace program or policy. This section does not require an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marijuana. This section does not create a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination. Marijuana, as defined in this section, is not reimbursable under chapter 440.
Court challenges are likely—most certainly on the aspect of the legislation that precludes actual smoking of marijuana. It is unclear what the result of a court challenge would be on the section that excludes smoking. The constitutional amendment provides that "[n]othing in this section shall require any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any correctional institution or detention facility or place of education or employment, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place."
In any event, the legislation gives Florida employers some degree of protection if they do not want intoxicated employees on their worksites.
This is also consistent with the federal Department of Transportation rule that medical review officers will not verify a drug test as negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use medical marijuana. Under those rules, "[i]t remains unacceptable for any safety‐sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation's drug testing regulations to use marijuana."
Edmund J. McKenna is an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Tampa, Fla. © Ogletree Deakins. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Become a SHRM Member
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies