48
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
In December 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Justice to complete the rulemaking process to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While the Executive Order is aimed at legalizing marijuana research and does not change the current law, it may significantly impact how employers address medical marijuana in the workplace under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, employers should understand that existing legal obligations and workplace policies are not yet affected.
Over the last ten years, with a majority of states legalizing the use of medical marijuana to treat debilitating conditions, employers throughout the country have been forced to answer whether they have to accommodate an employer’s lawful use of medical marijuana during non-working hours. The answer to this question has been contingent on the state where the employee works because some states require employers to accommodate off-site, off-duty use for non-safety-sensitive employers. In this analysis, there has been one constant for employers: federal law does not require accommodation.
Under the ADA, employees who are “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” are not protected. That means that an employer can take an adverse action such as disciplining or terminating an employee for using a Schedule I substance, and the employee cannot do anything about it. Other than marijuana, Schedule I substances include drugs such as heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and peyote — substances that, under federal law, are deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. As part of this classification, courts have consistently held that employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use under the ADA, and claims for failure to accommodate on this basis have routinely been dismissed.
By contrast, the ADA does protect employees who lawfully use other controlled substances, including drugs classified under Schedules II, III, IV, and V, when those medications are prescribed and used appropriately. In such circumstances, an employer generally may not take adverse action solely because of the employee’s medication use and must consider reasonable accommodations, unless the employee is impaired at work, the use poses a direct threat to safety, or the requested accommodation would be unreasonable.
Marijuana’s current classification as a Schedule I drug is therefore critical to the existing legal framework. If marijuana is ultimately reclassified as a Schedule III substance, it would no longer fall within the ADA’s exclusion for illegal drug use. This change could invite litigation arguing that off-duty medical marijuana use should be evaluated under the same reasonable accommodation standards that apply to other prescription medications.
Until the rulemaking process is completed and marijuana is formally rescheduled, federal law remains unchanged. But if and when that change comes, employers will be forced to assess their interactive process for accommodations in every state and likely make changes to job descriptions to identify which employees are safety sensitive such that an accommodation cannot occur. Whether medical marijuana ultimately comes to be treated like other prescription medications under federal disability law remains an open question, and one that employers should continue to watch closely as the regulatory and litigation landscape develops.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
In December 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Justice to complete the rulemaking process to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While the Executive Order is aimed at legalizing marijuana research and does not change the current law, it may significantly impact how employers address medical marijuana in the workplace under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accordingly, employers should understand that existing legal obligations and workplace policies are not yet affected.
Over the last ten years, with a majority of states legalizing the use of medical marijuana to treat debilitating conditions, employers throughout the country have been forced to answer whether they have to accommodate an employer’s lawful use of medical marijuana during non-working hours. The answer to this question has been contingent on the state where the employee works because some states require employers to accommodate off-site, off-duty use for non-safety-sensitive employers. In this analysis, there has been one constant for employers: federal law does not require accommodation.
Under the ADA, employees who are “currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” are not protected. That means that an employer can take an adverse action such as disciplining or terminating an employee for using a Schedule I substance, and the employee cannot do anything about it. Other than marijuana, Schedule I substances include drugs such as heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and peyote — substances that, under federal law, are deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. As part of this classification, courts have consistently held that employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use under the ADA, and claims for failure to accommodate on this basis have routinely been dismissed.
By contrast, the ADA does protect employees who lawfully use other controlled substances, including drugs classified under Schedules II, III, IV, and V, when those medications are prescribed and used appropriately. In such circumstances, an employer generally may not take adverse action solely because of the employee’s medication use and must consider reasonable accommodations, unless the employee is impaired at work, the use poses a direct threat to safety, or the requested accommodation would be unreasonable.
Marijuana’s current classification as a Schedule I drug is therefore critical to the existing legal framework. If marijuana is ultimately reclassified as a Schedule III substance, it would no longer fall within the ADA’s exclusion for illegal drug use. This change could invite litigation arguing that off-duty medical marijuana use should be evaluated under the same reasonable accommodation standards that apply to other prescription medications.
Until the rulemaking process is completed and marijuana is formally rescheduled, federal law remains unchanged. But if and when that change comes, employers will be forced to assess their interactive process for accommodations in every state and likely make changes to job descriptions to identify which employees are safety sensitive such that an accommodation cannot occur. Whether medical marijuana ultimately comes to be treated like other prescription medications under federal disability law remains an open question, and one that employers should continue to watch closely as the regulatory and litigation landscape develops.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC