In this case, Appellant, a CalTrans Highway Maintenance Worker, submitted to a drug test upon his return to duty after an extended leave of absence. Here’s why that won’t happen againĮxcerpts from CA State Personnel Board decision at: Read more about Cal NORML’s employment rights campaignĪlso see: Caltrans fired a dad over a marijuana pee test. Unfortunately it won’t protect government workers at the city or county levels, nor employees at private companies.Ī Cal NORML-sponsored bill to protect employees in California against drug tests for marijuana that do not prove impairment, AB 1256, has been introduced in the legislature as a two-year bill, to be heard in committee later this year or in 2022. The SPB ruling should protect most state employees against employment discrimination due to unwarranted drug testing, at least for inactive THC metabolites (as urine and hair testing do). Given that reality, State Agencies are powerless to discipline employees, like Appellant, whose test showed only that marijuana had been ingested or used sometime in the past, but that Appellant was not under the influence of marijuana while on duty.” The ruling concludes (amusingly), “the Board notes that it does not take a position on whether using marijuana is a good thing or a bad thing.” It goes on to say, “The voters have spoken and legalized it in the State of California. It is intended to ensure a safe workplace not to serve as a bar to marijuana use or alcohol consumption,” drawing a distinction between a drug-free workforce and a drug-free workplace. Harper to his CA DOT job.Įmployees who are under federal drug-testing mandates (like truck drivers) are not covered under the ruling, nor are those “impaired or under the influence from marijuana, alcohol, or any other substance while at work or while on standby for work.” However, the argument that Harper was in a “safety sensitive” position didn’t fly since those prohibitions “only extend to state employees while they are on duty or on standby for duty. The SPB ruled that a urine test does not establish that an employee is under the influence of marijuana when reporting for duty, and therefore “does not justify discipline.” The ruling reinstates Mr. J– The California State Personnel Board (SPB), established in the state constitution, provides direction to departments about civil service laws, rules, and policy, and also investigates and adjudicates alleged violations of civil service law which are filed by employees, applicants, and members of the public.ĭarrin Harper brought such an allegation against the California Department of Transportation, which refused to reinstate him on his job after he failed a urine test for marijuana use. CALIFORNIA PERSONNEL BOARD RULES THAT FAILING A URINE TEST FOR MARIJUANA IS NOT PROOF OF EMPLOYEE’S IMPAIRMENT OR GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL