A. Unless a failure to do so would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or federal regulations, it is unlawful to take an adverse employment action against an applicant or an employee based on conduct allowed under the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act.
B. Nothing in this section shall:
(1) restrict an employer's ability to prohibit or take adverse employment action against an employee for use of, or being impaired by, medical cannabis on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment; or
(2) apply to an employee whose employer deems that the employee works in a safety-sensitive position.
History: Laws 2019, ch. 247, § 11.
ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2019, ch. 247 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective June 14, 2019, 90 days after the adjournment of the legislature.
Medical marijuana is not an accommodation that must be provided for by employer. — Where plaintiff filed a complaint with the New Mexico human rights division alleging unlawful discrimination by defendant tractor supply company, and where evidence at trial established that plaintiff applied for a management position with defendant, and where, during the interview process, plaintiff advised defendant's hiring manager of his diagnosis of HIV/AIDS and of his participation in the medical cannabis program, and where, after being hired for the job, defendant was required to report to a testing facility to undergo a drug test, the results of which indicated a positive test for cannabis metabolites, and where defendant discharged plaintiff on the basis of the positive drug test, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted because the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act, §§ 26-2B-1 through § 26-2B-10 NMSA 1978, which authorizes New Mexico's medical cannabis program, combined with the New Mexico Human Rights Act, §§ 28-1-1 through § 28-1-14 NMSA 1978, does not provide a cause of action for plaintiff, as medical marijuana is not an accommodation that must be provided for by the employer. Garcia v. Tractor Supply Company, 154 F.Supp.3d 1225 (D.N.M. 2016).