Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        Maine Department of Labor Directly Clarifies Its Position on Drug Testing & Marijuana

        by Tawny L. Alvarez on July 26, 2017

        Based off of information received in a Portland Press Herald article, we previously noted that the Maine Department of Labor Director of Policy, Operations and Communications, Julie Rabinowitz, reported to the legislature’s Marijuana Legalization Implementation Committee that businesses with Maine-state drug testing policies should not test job applicants and workers for marijuana, because even if the tests came back positive, employers cannot fire the individual. The Maine Department of Labor issued a press release shortly after the article was posted (and after our initial blog post) noting that this interpretation would only be relevant if the legislature does not change the current language of the statute prior to February 2018 when the law takes affect—at this time, however, employers may permissibly refuse to hire an applicant who tests positive for marijuana.

        Specifically, Section 2454(2) of the Marijuana Legalization Act provides: “This chapter may not be construed to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, trade, display, transportation, sale or growing of cannabis in the workplace. This chapter does not affect the ability of employers to enact and enforce workplace policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees or to discipline employees who are under the influence of marijuana in the workplace.”

        Moreover, Section 2454(3) provides: “A school, employer or landlord may not refuse to enroll or employ or lease to or otherwise penalize a person 21 years of age or older solely for that person’s consuming marijuana outside of the school’s, employer’s or landlord’s property.”

        These two provisions—if unchanged before February 2018—are what the DOL is relying upon to support the position that employers will not be able to take adverse action against an employee even if the employer has a state-sanctioned drug testing policy and that employee fails the drug test. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found language similar to that found in Section 2454(2) to implicitly require an employer to attempt to accommodate employees who had marijuana in their system while at work, but who did not use the marijuana at work. The additional hurdle that the Maine statute as a whole creates for employers is the fact that there currently are no scientifically proven ways to determine whether an employee is under the influence of marijuana. Accordingly, an employer is relying upon a determination that an employee is “under the influence,” it is recommended that a policy or practice be created as to what standard will be relied upon to make this determination.

        Currently, the DOL is noting that “as an at-will state, a Maine employer or employee can end the employment relationship for any reason, and an employer may choose not to hire an applicant with a marijuana-positive drug test without a certification for medical use.” After 2018, without a legislative change, that may not be the case. Until there is clarity in the legislation—or a court case that clarifies employers’ responsibilities—we recommend employers contact counsel prior to taking any adverse action against an employee who tests positive for marijuana under a state-approved drug test. To further discuss marijuana in the workplace and the effect on employer actions, contact a member of Verrill Dana’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

        *This post has been updated to incorporate further clarification by the Department of Labor on its position on drug testing and marijuana.

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Key Contacts

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...
        Published Works

        Francesco De Vito Authors Article in the Journal of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys

        Verrill Partner Frank De Vito authored an article featured in the Spring 2026 issue of The Abstract, the journal of the American College of Mortgage...