DOL Provides Guidance On Cannabis Use in the Workplace

Upon the legalization of cannabis in New York State, Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law ("Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities") was amended to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees for using cannabis outside of the workplace on their own time. 

The Department of Labor ("DOL") recently issued guidance (in the form of frequently asked questions) regarding certain elements of the law:

1. Employee Discipline: While employers may not discipline employees for using cannabis while off-duty and off-premises, employers may take action against employees who "manifest specific articulable symptoms of impairment" on the job. The DOL guidance defines "articulable symptoms of impairment" as "objectively observable indications that the employee's performance of the duties of the position are decreased or lessened." For example: operating heavy machinery in a reckless manner would likely qualify. The DOL further specified that the following are not, without more, "articulable symptoms of impairment": 
• positive test for cannabis;
• odor of cannabis; and/or
• other typical observable signs of cannabis use.
2. Use at Work: Employers may prohibit cannabis use and possession during all work hours which include breaks and meals periods, even if the employee leaves the worksite, and when an employee is "on-call."
3. Drug Testing: Employers may not test employees for cannabis outside of the following circumstances:
• It is required by state or federal law for a particular position;
• The employer would lose a federal contract or federal funding; or
• The employee manifests "specific articulable symptoms of impairment" (although an employer may not discipline an employee based solely on a positive test, as stated above).  

Does this guidance provide clarity or just create more questions? In which of these areas do you foresee litigation?

Should NYer's have a Constitutional Right to Clean Air and Water, and a Healthful Environment?

This question is on the ballot on November 2nd.

The answer seems simple, but with early voting starting in New York this Saturday, October 23rd, have you considered the implications of Proposal 2 of the statewide ballot, to make New Yorkers have a constitutional right to "clean air and water, and a healthful environment?"

In 1996, the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, explained that a constitutional right may provide for an "action for damages for violation... against a government or individual defendants." However, the Court did not say that all constitutional violations give way to a damages action, in that case, Brown v. State. So, it remains unclear if courts will permit private citizens to be awarded damages from polluters if Proposal 2 is passed in the statewide ballot. That being said, Senator Robert Jackson, who sponsored Proposal 2, believes that the amendment will give New Yorkers "the right to take legal action for a clean environment," per BallotPedia. 

Do you think that private citizens should be awarded damages for suing companies that damage our clean air, water and a healthful environment? Shouldn't the money go back to the State to fix the damage rather than into a private individual's pocket? 

Where is the line? 

Should truck drivers be sued if they don't switch to electric vehicles? 

How about private jet passengers? 

Shouldn't this be thought-out before we open the private lawsuit free-for-all? 

Attorney Andrew Lieb Discusses White House Response to TX & FL Mandate Bans with BNC

Attorney Andrew Lieb discusses White House Response to Texas and Florida mandate bans on BNC.

Attorney Andrew Lieb Provides Legal Analysis on NY's Vaccine Mandate For School Staff and State Workers on PIX 11 News NY

Attorney Andrew Lieb interviewed on PIX11 NY 10pm news on New Jersey vaccine mandate for school staff and state workers.

Podcast | Divorce Visitation for Unvaccinated Parents + How Raiders Coach Resignation will Spur Discrimination Lawsuits

 

This episode dives into the resignation of Jon Gruden (Raiders Coach) and how his email reveal will spur discrimination lawsuits + how online sports gambling should turn into online lawsuit gambling to follow suit. Speaking of gambling, we discuss whether divorce child visitation should be impacted by COVID vaccination status and to get the answers from the source, we bring on our special guest Divorce Attorney Evan Schein, who just litigated this issue in Supreme Court. To learn the spread before you put down your coin, tune into the Lieb Cast.