What Employers & Plan Fiduciaries Must Know About Recent DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Orders and Hearings Considering Broader Marijuana Rescheduling

July 27, 2026

July 27, 2026

U.S. employers should reassess their existing policies on workplace drug use and testing and disability accommodation decision-making for Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”)-approved and state licensed medical use of marijuana in response to Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) rescheduling orders under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) implemented last April while closely monitoring for DEA action on a DEA proposal to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the CSA.  The proposed marijuana rescheduling would significantly affect the consequences of marijuana use by individuals in the United States, including the testing and consequences of marijuana use under Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and other federal drug testing mandates.

Where the Rescheduling Stands Today

The recently completed ALJ hearing traces back to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published May 21, 2024, proposing to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. After more than a year of procedural DEA delay holding hearings or taking other material action on the proposed rule, President Trump’s December 18, 2025 executive order directed the Attorney General to expedite completion of the rulemaking. In response, on April 23–24, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a final order that:

  • immediately moved FDA-approved marijuana drug products into Schedule III;
  • immediately moved marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license into Schedule III; and
  • simultaneously ordered a new, expedited DEA administrative hearing to evaluate the broader question of whether marijuana generally — not limited to FDA-approved or state-licensed medical products — should move from Schedule I to Schedule III. See DOJ Office of Public Affairs release; DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Regulatory Actions page.

That broader hearing opened June 29, 2026 at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, before Chief ALJ Derek C. Julius, ran (with a recess for the July 4th holiday period) through mid-July, and formally concluded on July 15, 2026 following closing presentations from a group of participating states. See DEA press release; Notice of Hearing, 91 Fed. Reg. 22777 (Apr. 28, 2026). Because DEA and DOJ are the proponents of the rule, the hearing’s structure permitted testimony only from designated participants opposing rescheduling — including Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, and the States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, and Tennessee (through its Bureau of Investigation), among others. Pro-reform organizations including NORML sought and were denied participant status. ALJ Julius also ordered that the hearing would not be televised, livestreamed, or otherwise broadcast, limiting observation to in-person attendance.

With the evidentiary record now closed, ALJ Julius set August 17, 2026 as the deadline for designated parties to file optional post-hearing briefs (up to 50 pages each, one per party), after which he will prepare his findings and recommendation for the DEA Administrator. See Order for Transcript Corrections and Post-Hearing Briefs, In re Schedules of Controlled Substances: Proposed Rescheduling of Marijuana (DEA July 16, 2026). Particularly given President Trump’s expressed support for expanding access to medical marijuana, many might assume this rapidly approaching deadline signals a decision on the proposed rescheduling is near. It bears noting, however, that neither the ALJ’s recommendation nor the Administrator’s subsequent final decision is bound by any deadline. Following the DEA’s previous 1980s cannabis rescheduling proceeding, the ALJ took roughly two years to issue a recommendation that the Administrator then rejected outright, a rejection the D.C. Circuit ultimately upheld. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

As if this ambiguity isn’t enough, the Acting Attorney General’s April 2026 final order reclassifying to Schedule III FDA-approved and state licensed marijuana now faces legal challenges such as the one brought by Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, see SAM Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. 26-1106 (D.C. Cir., petition filed May 4, 2026), and another brought by the Attorneys General of Indiana and Nebraska, see Nebraska, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. 26-1130 (D.C. Cir., petition filed May 22, 2026).  While the fate of these consolidated challenges awaits resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, employers and health plans must deal with the currently effective policy change that, for now, has made a Schedule I drug FDAA-approved medical and state-licensed marijuana.

Pending the resolution of challenges to the currently effective change of FDA-approved medical and state licensed marijuana and DEA action on its broader rescheduling proposal, however, employers and plan sponsors should review their existing marijuana use and testing policies for the already effective FDA approval of FDA-approved marijuana drug products and marijuana subject to a qualifying state medical marijuana license that took effect under the final rescheduling orders issued by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on April 23–24, while continuing to monitor the Federal Register and other FDA and Congressional comments and actions signaling when and the likely direction the FDA intends to take on the broader proposal to reschedule marijuana generally from Schedule I to Schedule III.

What Already Changed — Independent of the Proposed DEA Rescheduling Rule Change

It is important for compliance purposes to separate what is already final from what remains pending:

Already in effect (April 2026 Final Order)

  • FDA-approved marijuana-containing drug products are in Schedule III.
  • Marijuana handled under a qualifying state medical marijuana license is in Schedule III, with a new expedited DEA registration pathway for state licensees.
  • State-licensed medical marijuana businesses are relieved of the Internal Revenue Code § 280E deduction disallowance, which applies only to Schedule I and II trafficking.
  • Recreational/adult-use marijuana, unlicensed marijuana, and synthetically derived THC remain in Schedule I and are unaffected by the April order.

Still pending (record closed; awaiting ALJ recommendation and DEA final decision)

  • Whether marijuana as a category — including adult-use/recreational marijuana not tied to an FDA-approved product or state medical license — moves to Schedule III.
  • The government has been explicit throughout that this proceeding is not about legalizing recreational use; it concerns whether marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use” sufficient to satisfy the CSA’s scheduling criteria.
  • Post-hearing briefs are due August 17, 2026; the ALJ’s recommendation and DEA’s final decision will follow on an unannounced timeline.

Why This Matters for Employers — and Why It Doesn’t Change as Much as Headlines Suggest

A move from Schedule I to Schedule III would be historically significant, but it would not legalize recreational marijuana use, and it would not, by itself, require employers to change drug-free workplace policies. Marijuana would remain a controlled substance requiring a valid prescription for lawful use under federal law; unauthorized possession or use would remain a federal offense. HR and employment counsel should calibrate client and internal expectations accordingly while continuing to monitor the following areas:

Drug testing and drug-free workplace policies

The scheduling change could impact your current workplace drug use and drug testing policies by expanding legally permitted use and requiring the collection of added documentation for those claiming permitted use. Employers, insurers and others concerned about impairment by workers consuming marijuana in accordance with its new scheduling will need to consider the need for and advisability of adopting policies tailored to their concerns and ensuring their testing and other administrative practices meet applicable legal requirements.

For purposes of this analysis, the changes adopted last April can make medicinal use in accordance with FDA-approved or state-licensed uses legal in the applicable workplace jurisdiction. However, the proposed schedule III classification would not convert a positive marijuana test into evidence of lawful drug use in the ordinary case, since off-label recreational use would remain unauthorized under federal law absent a valid prescription.

Employers should nonetheless review testing panels, medical review officer (MRO) protocols, and policy language for currency, and confirm policies still align with applicable state law, which increasingly diverges from federal scheduling on off-duty use protections.

DOT and other safety-sensitive/federally regulated testing

The recently adopted and additional proposed rescheduling of marijuana to a Schedule III classification are unlikely to change U.S. Department of Transportation drug testing requirements, as its 49 C.F.R. Part 40 rules operate independently of CSA scheduling. DOT has previously confirmed that rescheduling marijuana would not, by itself, change safety-sensitive testing requirements. Employers with DOT-covered or other federally regulated safety-sensitive positions should watch for any DOT or agency-specific guidance issued in response to a final rescheduling decision. Nevertheless, the rescheduling likely foreseeably could encourage even broader unauthorized use by employees or others reading the rescheduling as eliminating prohibitions, reflecting a further decline in enforcement, or both.

ADA and disability-related considerations

The recent DEA rescheduling of FDA-approved use of medicinal marijuana to a Schedule I drug classification will expand legally available options for medicinal marijuana use by employees in accordance with appropriately prescribed and used medicinal marijuana. Also, forty states now authorize medical marijuana under state law, many with employment protections for off-duty medical use that already operate independently of federal scheduling. Federal rescheduling will not harmonize this patchwork, and multistate employers should continue maintaining state-by-state policy matrices rather than assuming a federal fix is coming.

These changes can create new Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) implijcations by, among other things:

  • Requiring employers to consider requests for accommodation of medically prescribed marijuana by broadening the availability and medicinal use of FDA-approved and state-licensed medicinal marijuana. Rescheduling does not change the ADA’s treatment of current illegal drug use as outside the definition of a protected disability while such use continues.
  • Requiring employers to consider the convergence between ADA’s mental/psychological impairment prong and MHPAEA parity classification issues when designing substance use disorder treatment benefits — a distinct analysis from current-use accommodation questions, and one worth continuing to track alongside this rulemaking.

Health and welfare plan sponsors and fiduciaries

The reclassification of FDA-approved medicinal marijuana also can create new design questions for health and disability benefit plan sponsors and claims and appeals health challenges for health and disability plan fiduciaries. For instance,

  • Health, AD&D, disability, life and other benefit plan sponsors and fiduciaries should recognize that the rescheduling adopted last April expands the legally allowed prescription and use of marijuana.
  • While Schedule III status does not itself create a coverage mandate, the approval could affect how FDA-approved uses are treated by removing exclusions or rules that previously denied coverage based on their more restricted DEA Schedule III status. While formulary and coverage decisions for any FDA-approved cannabinoid product remain a plan design and medical-necessity determination for the plan sponsor and its PBM or other fiduciaries, previously relied upon exclusions may no longer operate in the same way to restrict coverage.
  • Plan sponsors, their prescription benefit managers, insurers and other service providers should reevaluate current formularies and coverage provisions and exclusions for MHPAEA and other implications. They also should watch the FDA approval pipeline for cannabinoid drug products for potential formulary impact, should evaluate the need for changes in coverage or benefit exclusions and added fiduciary or other risks relating to benefit coverage and limitations potentially impacted by marijuana use. Health, disability, accident and dismemberment, and life insurance plan fiduciaries and insurers should use care to consider prudently the potential implications of rescheduling on any claims or appeals including special concerns and considerations likely to arise with respect to health benefits impacted byh MHPAEA. Fiduciaries should use care to coordinate any MHPAEA comparative analysis work touching substance use disorder benefits with counsel already tracking that parity exposure.

Cannabis-industry and cannabis-adjacent employers

State-licensed medical marijuana operators already qualify for § 280E relief under the April 2026 order; HR and finance functions at these employers should confirm payroll tax treatment reflects the change and monitor the expedited DEA registration pathway for state licensees.

Recommended Action Items

For HR and Employment Counsel

  • Review (but do not overhaul) drug-testing and drug-free workplace policies now; hold substantive revisions pending a final DEA decision, which — with post-hearing briefs not even due until August 17 — remains months away at minimum.
  • Confirm state-law policy variations are current, independent of the federal rescheduling timeline.
  • Flag DOT-covered positions for a separate compliance check once DOT issues any post-rulemaking guidance.

For Health, AD&D, Disability and & Other Welfare Plan Sponsors and Fiduciaries

  • Task PBM and plan counsel with monitoring FDA’s cannabinoid drug approval pipeline for formulary implications.
  • Coordinate substance use disorder benefit design review with pending MHPAEA comparative analysis obligations.

For General Counsel and Risk Management

  • Track the consolidated D.C. Circuit challenges to the April 2026 Final Order alongside the ALJ’s post-hearing process; a reversal on appeal could unwind the medical/state-licensed rescheduling already in effect.
  • Maintain rescheduling-tracking analysis as privileged work product where prepared to inform litigation or enforcement-risk posture.

For State-Licensed Medical Marijuana Employers

  • Confirm § 280E tax treatment has been updated and pursue the expedited DEA registration pathway using existing state licensure as supporting evidence.

Stay Tuned and Share Your Input

While the DEA’s proposed rescheduling is a self-initiated proposal, the ALJ’s post-hearing recommendation and what action, if any, the DEA ultimately will take on its proposal to reschedule marijuana more broadly remain uncertain. Although the DEA hearing on the proposed ruling is complete, communications to the DEA and Congress still offer opportunities to influence the direction and outcome of these decisions. Concerned employers and others should consider communicating any input or concerns to the DEA and Congress promptly to ensure their input receives consideration. Meanwhile, employers, health and disability plans and other interested parties should reevaluate their policies in response to the already adopted rescheduling as they monitor for future developments.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization with decades of experience advising and assisting health industry and other employers to design, audit, and defend their employment and other risk management and compliance practices, including conducting audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization peer peer celebrated as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business and Commercial Law.

Nationally recognized for her decades of leading-edge workforce, health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, regulatory affairs and compliance, and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, she is the publisher of Solutions Law Press, Inc.® practitioner-focused compliance publications for employers, plan sponsors, HR professionals, health care, insurance, technology and data industry leaders, and legal counsel and risk management advisors.

Along with these activities, Ms. Stamer also has earned national recognition for her authorship of thousands of highly regarded works, presentations as a knowledgeable speaker, testimony and other input of regulators and legislators, and media interviews on health and other benefits, human resources and other workforce, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer, engaging her services or to speak, her work, credentials, experience and involvements, or other matters, see the About the Author page, her website at www.cynthiastamer.com, or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

Leave a Comment » | Accommodation, ADA, Attorney-Client Privilege, board of directors, Brokers, Claims Administration, compliance, Construction, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DOT, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testing, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, health benefit, Health Benefits, health plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Hiring, HR, Human Resources, Labor Management Relations, Management, Marijauna, Mental Health, Mental Health Parity, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation, Safety, Section 1557, Union | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Federal Marijuanna Pardons Create Potential Employer Headaches

March 5, 2023


Employers whose policies disqualify applicants from employment based on past Marijuanna convictions need to prepare to respond to applicants presenting certificates of pardon of their prior federal conviction of simple Marijuanna conviction received under President Biden’s October 6, 2023 Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession.

Biden Marijuanna Pardons

The Proclamation provided a blanket pardon for all prior federal and D.C. (but not state) offenses of simple possession of marijuana. 

Those who were pardoned on October 6, 2022, are eligible for a certificate of pardon. Consistent with the proclamation, to be eligible for a certificate, an applicant must have been charged or convicted of simple possession of marijuana in either a federal court or D.C. Superior Court, and the applicant must have been lawfully within the United States at the time of the offense. Similarly, an individual must have been a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident on October 6, 2022. Those convicted of state marijuana offenses do not qualify for the pardon.

On March 3, 2023, the Justice Department announced the application process for issuing certificates of the pardons to pardoned individuals. This process allows pardoned individuals to get prof of their pardons to present to employers and others. Consequently health care and other businesses should prepare to respond to applicants presenting these certificates. 

When he made the pardon proclamation, President Biden directed the Justice Department to develop a process for individuals to receive their certificate of pardon. On March 3, 2023, the Justice Department issued an application for eligible individuals to receive certificate of proof that they were pardoned under the Oct. 6, 2022, proclamation by President Biden. 

The online application available on the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s website: Application for Certificate of Pardon allows eligible persons to submit documentation to the Office of the Pardon Attorney and receive a certificate indicating the person was pardoned on October 6, 2022, for simple possession of marijuana.

President Biden said when making his proclamation he intended the pardons to “help relieve the consequences arising from these convictions.” The President’s pardon, effective Oct. 6, 2022, may assist pardoned persons by removing civil or legal disabilities such as restrictions on the right to vote, to hold office or to sit on a jury that are imposed because of the pardoned conviction. Proofs of pardon also may help those pardoned to obtain licenses, bonding or employment.

Potential Employer Challenges

The pardons are likely to create concerns for health care and other employers who currently disqualify applicants from eligibility for employment based on drug related criminal conditions where the employer remains subject to statutory, regulatory, contractual or other requirements prohibiting employment of workers with prior or current history of drug offenses or use. 

As a starting point, employers should carefully review their own existing policies as well as any statutory, regulatory contractual requirements applicable to their workforce to assess the implications of the pardons on the employment eligibility of a pardoned worker. Ambiguities are likely to arise under many policies, particularly where a hugyirunof drug use or possession is disqualifying without a requirement of a conviction. 

Employers contemplating continuing to disqualify pardoned applicants for safety or other reasons probably should seek the advice of legal counsel. Some pardoned applicants might argue an employer’s reliance on a pardoned criminal drug conviction constitutes prohibited discrimination based on a history of prior drug dependence that violates the Americans With Disabilities Act or other discrimination laws. Statements made by President Biden and others within the Administration suggest the Equal Employmrnt Opportunity omission might support these or similar arguments in furtherance of promotion if President Biden’s policy of facilitating opportunities for employment for individuals recovering from substance abuse. 

Employers also may struggle with equity questions raised by the pardoning of federal convicts but not those with state convictions. 

Employers should monitor Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and other guidance and seek advice of experienced legal counsel to develop and administer hiring policies to mitigate potential exposures. 

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. 

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.  

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends health care, education, DOT, government contractors and a wide range of other employers about drug testing and drug free workplace, discrimination, safety and other employment, benefit and other Human Resources, Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. 

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here. 

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Federal Marijuanna Pardons Create Potential Employer Headaches | ADA, compliance, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Discrimination, DOT, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, Education, EEOC, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Government Contractors, Labor Management Relations, OFCCP, Rehabilitation Act, Retaliation | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications

September 22, 2022

A new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) lawsuit that refusing to hire an applicant for testing positive for legally prescribed medications could violate the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) under certain circumstances.

The EEOC is suing the Princess Martha senior living residence owned and managed by TJM Properties for allegedly violating the ADA by revoking an applicant’s job offer because of her disability, in a lawsuit filed yesterday.

According to the lawsuit, the applicant, a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), received an offer of employment from Princess Martha conditioned upon a negative drug test. During her interview, the applicant informed her interviewer she was diagnosed with PTSD and was required to take legally-prescribed medications that would cause her drug test to fail. The applicant subsequently took the drug test and received a “non-negative” result. A few days after taking the drug test, the applicant called Princess Martha to check on the status of her hire and again informed the employer her prescription medications would cause a drug test to fail. The next day, the applicant’s job offer was revoked without explanation.

In its complaint in EEOC v. Princess Martha, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02182) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the EEOC alleges the conduct violates the ADA) prohibitions against discrimination based on disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations of disabilities if it does not cause the company an undue hardship. The EEOC seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the employee, as well as injunctive relief to prevent any further discriminatory practices.

The lawsuit reminds other employers and their drug testing, recruiting, staffing and other business partners that a positive drug test does not always justify refusing to hire, firing, or taking other adverse employment action against an applicant or employee. Applicants and employees testing positive for drugs legally taken to treat a medical or physical condition that qualifies as a disability may qualify as disabled individuals entitled to accommodation unless the employer can prove with evidence collected before the action that he accommodation creates an undue hardship, a legitimate safety risk, or would violate the law.

Employees, recruiters and other workforce service providers using drug testing in their hiring or other processes should review and administer their drug testing practices to include appropriate procedures to invite applicants and employees to disclose legally prescribed medications, to use consistent processes to verify the alleged medical need for the medication and its prescribed use, and where verified, to conduct documented evaluations of accommodation options including where applicable evaluations if evidence the employer intends to rely upon to justify denial of accommodation as an undue hardship, for evidence supported safety reasons that can’t be managed through reasonable accommodation without undue hardship, to comply with a legal mandate or another relevant defense to accommodation under the ADA. Employers and they’re agents also must use care to comply with the ADA requirements for maintaining records and information confidential and in separate confidential medical files, as well as comply with otherwise applicable special rules for keeping confidential drug testing and treatment records.

Because unprivileged discussions of potential responses to positive drug tests and other employment decision-making between employers, recruiters, drug testing or other internal or external parties could be discovered and used to show pretext, willfulness, retaliation or other evidence helpful to prove discrimination or retaliation claims by the EEOC, disgruntled applicants or employees or both, employers and other parties participating in drug testing or other related hiring, recruiting or employment decision -making are cautioned to include, understand and follow appropriate procedures engaging qualified legal counsel for seeking advice and to conduct and keep discussions and other evidence and communications relating to drug testing, accommodation and other hiring, discipline, termination and employment matters within the scope of attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege or both.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law and among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of advising, representing and defending domestic and international public, closely held and government organizations on workforce, employee benefits, internal controls and governance, and other risk management, compliance and government relations concerns as well as her coaching, scholarship, training and legislative and public affairs advocacy on these and related areas.

Ms. Stamer helps health industry and other organizations and their management manage. Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her nearly 30+ year career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup workforce and other legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce management operations and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy. Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes. Common engagements include internal and external workforce hiring, management, training, performance management, compliance and administration, discipline and termination, and other aspects of workforce management including employment and outsourced services contracting and enforcement, sentencing guidelines and other compliance plan, policy and program development, administration, and defense, performance management, wage and hour and other compensation and benefits, reengineering and other change management, internal controls, compliance and risk management, communications and training, worker classification, tax and payroll, investigations, crisis preparedness and response, government relations, safety, government contracting and audits, litigation and other enforcement, and other concerns. She also represents and defends clients in investigations, audits, enforcement actions and other dealings with the the Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and a multitude of federal, state, and locate agencies, state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies, public and private credentialing, licensing and accreditation bodies, as well as conducts and counsels clients on private litigation, employment and other services disputes, regulatory and public policy advocacy, training and discipline, enforcement  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compensation, health and other welfare benefit and insurance, severance, pension and deferred compensation, private exchanges, cafeteria plan and other employee benefit, fringe benefit, salary and hourly compensation, bonus and other incentive compensation and related programs, products and arrangements. She is particularly recognized for her leading edge work, thought leadership and knowledgeable advice and representation on the design, documentation, administration, regulation and defense of a diverse range of self-insured and insured health and welfare benefit plans including private exchange and other health benefit choices, health care reimbursement and other “defined contribution” limited benefit, 24-hour and other occupational and non-occupational injury and accident, expat and medical tourism, onsite medical, wellness and other medical plans and insurance benefit programs as well as a diverse range of other qualified and nonqualified retirement and deferred compensation, severance and other employee benefits and compensation, insurance and savings plans, programs, products, services and activities. As a key element of this work, Ms. Stamer works closely with employer and other plan sponsors, insurance and financial services companies, plan fiduciaries, administrators, and vendors and others to design, administer and defend effective legally defensible employee benefits and compensation practices, programs, products and technology. She also continuously helps employers, insurers, administrative and other service providers, their officers, directors and others to manage fiduciary and other risks of sponsorship or involvement with these and other benefit and compensation arrangements and to defend and mitigate liability and other risks from benefit and liability claims including fiduciary, benefit and other claims, audits, and litigation brought by the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, participants and beneficiaries, service providers, and others. She also assists debtors, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and others assess, manage and resolve labor and employment, employee benefits and insurance, payroll and other compensation related concerns arising from reductions in force or other terminations, mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and other business transactions including extensive experience with multiple, high-profile large scale bankruptcies resulting in ERISA, tax, corporate and securities and other litigation or enforcement actions.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence workforce, health care, pension, social security, insurance and other policies critical to the workforce, benefits, and compensation practices and other key aspects of a broad range of businesses and their operations. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas, Ms. Stamer annually leads the Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) HHS Office of Civil Rights agency meeting and other JCEB agency meetings. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to many business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also shares her leadership through her extensive involvement in many professional, community and civic organizations. Currently, she serves as Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR and a representative for its Annual Agency Meeting with the EEOC, Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA Tort & Insurance Section (TIPS) Medicine and Law Committee, RPTE Section Employee Benefits Committee Welfare Plan Chair, and in various other projects and capacities. She also previously has served as an ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative, Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, the Society for Human Resources Management Region IV Board Chair and National Consultant’s Board Member; am Editorial Advisory Board Member and author for HR.com, Insurance ThoughtLeaders, BNA CD-Rolm, and Employee Benefits News; the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence Board President, Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, on the North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, as a Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas and many others.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. These include hundreds of highly regarded articles and workshops on health and other benefits, workforce, health care and insurance concerns.

For more information about these requirements, Ms. Stamer or her experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE:   These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.  Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.  Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. 

©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on ADA May Require Employers To Accommodate Employees Testing Positive For Legally Prescribed Medications | Accommodation, ADA, Corporate Compliance, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, DOT, Drug & Alcohol, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, EEOC, EEOC, Employers, Employment Discrimination, Prescription Drugs, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer