Rhode Island Cannabis Act Signed on May 25, 2022
May 31, 2022
On May 25, 2022, Rhode Island became the 19th state to legalize recreational cannabis. The Rhode Island Cannabis Act (“the Act”) establishes a licensing process for recreational cannabis retailers and process for expunging prior convictions for cannabis possession. The Act also contains protections for employees that will affect employers.
Although cannabis is legal, employers are not required to accommodate the use or possession of cannabis, or being under the influence of cannabis, while in the workplace or performing work. The Act acknowledges that the boundaries of the workplace have expanded beyond the office and specifically includes remote work.
Employers cannot fire or take disciplinary action against an employee solely because they used cannabis outside the workplace. However, employers can discipline or fire and employees for coming to work “under the influence” of cannabis. There are three exceptions to this general rule:
- The first exception is for circumstances where there is a collective bargaining agreement in place that prohibits cannabis use outside of work.
- The second exception is for federal contractors or other employers subject to federal law, who could lose a monetary or licensing benefit for failing to implement a disciplinary policy for employee cannabis use or possession outside of work.
- The third exception is for employees in jobs that are “hazardous, dangerous or essential to public welfare or safety.” For employees in these jobs, employers may adopt policies that prohibit the use of cannabis 24-hours before a scheduled work shift. The Act provides a non-comprehensive list of jobs that qualify which include: “operation of an aircraft, watercraft, heavy equipment, heavy machinery, commercial vehicles, school buses or public transportation; use of explosives; public safety first responder jobs; and emergency and surgical medical personnel.”
In the workplace, determining whether an employee is “under the influence” can be challenging. The Act does not provide a definition for the term, but it does provide “a person shall not be considered to be under the influence solely for having cannabis metabolites in his or her system.” Commonly available cannabis tests are not capable of measuring when someone last used cannabis, how much they used, or whether they are impaired. Additionally, Rhode Island prohibits random drug screening. In light of these challenges employers should consider trainings or guidelines for supervisors to help them identify employees who may be under the influence of cannabis while on the job.
Employers trying to manage these new developments should ensure they have clear drug use and drug testing policies and procedures that comply with the Act.
If your business has any questions regarding this topic, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at (413) 586-2288.
Why this matters now. After Charlie Kirk’s killing, workers across sectors posted remarks that mocked or celebrated his death. Employers responded within hours. Some fired workers for policy violations; others suspended them pending review. ABC preempted Jimmy Kimmel Live! after affiliates refused to carry the show and a federal regulator publicly criticized Kimmel’s on-air comments. Events moved quickly, and confusion spread just as fast. The First Amendment restrains government. It does not create a job right to speak without workplace consequences. Private employers retain broad discretion, and public employers face a different constitutional test. Knowing where actual protection begins and ends will help you act quickly and lawfully. What counts as protected speech? · Concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Employees who speak with, or on behalf of, co-workers about pay, scheduling, staffing, safety, or other working conditions engage in “concerted” activity. That protection covers many social-media discussions directed to co-workers or seeking to start group action. It does not cover personal gripes, threats, disclosure of trade secrets, or harassing content. · Anti-retaliation “opposition” rights. Federal and state EEO laws protect employees who oppose or report discrimination in good faith, even if they are ultimately proven wrong on the facts. Crude insults and slurs fall outside that protection; specific, work-focused complaints usually fall inside it. · State off-duty and political-activity laws. Some states protect lawful off-duty conduct or political activity outside work. New York protects many lawful off-duty political and recreational activities. California limits employer control of political activity. Colorado protects broad lawful off-duty conduct, subject to narrow exceptions. Connecticut’s statute extends free-speech protections to private employees on matters of public concern, balanced against legitimate business interests. Multistate employers should map these rules before disciplining off-duty posts. · Public-sector balancing. Government employers must apply the Pickering/Garcetti framework. Speech by a public employee as a citizen on a matter of public concern can receive protection unless it impairs efficiency or disrupts operations; speech made as part of job duties receives no constitutional protection. What does not count as protected speech? · Policy-violating speech. Private employers may discipline speech that breaches social-media, civility, confidentiality, or brand guidelines, so long as the rule and its enforcement do not infringe concerted-activity rights or a state protection. · Harassment and threats. Speech that targets protected classes or creates a hostile environment falls outside any protection and often requires prompt action. · Disclosure of confidential or proprietary information. Revealing nonpublic business information, client data, or trade secrets invites discipline and potential legal remedies. · Speech that predicts or causes disruption. Even in the public sector, officials may discipline speech that reasonably threatens operations, safety, or public trust after applying the required balancing test. How the rules apply to current events. · Kirk-related terminations. Employers dismissed or suspended workers who posted content perceived as celebrating violence or taunting the victim. In private workplaces, the analysis turned on clear policy language, the connection to the employer’s brand, and whether the post involved coworkers or working conditions. Where a post targeted protected classes, anti-harassment duties reinforced the decision. Where a post was unrelated to working conditions and did not fall under state protection, at-will principles typically allowed discipline. Public employers had to apply the constitutional balancing test and document expected disruption before acting. · The Kimmel preemption. ABC removed the show from its schedule after affiliates announced they would not air it and after public criticism from a federal regulator. Two practical lessons follow. First, business partners can force rapid action; affiliate refusals and advertiser pressure often shorten timelines and narrow options. Second, overt regulatory attention raises stakes for content decisions in media and adjacent industries. Employers should plan in advance for partner pushback and regulatory scrutiny, with ready playbooks and internal sign-offs. · Other instructive precedents. Google’s termination of an engineer over a workplace memo survived a federal labor challenge because the content did not qualify as protected concerted activity and risked discriminatory impact. ESPN suspended an anchor for tweets that violated its social-media rules, a reminder that brand and business relationships can justify discipline even when speech occurs off the clock. Franklin Templeton prevailed against a wrongful-termination suit after firing an employee whose viral conduct damaged trust and reputation. Each example turns on the same themes: a clear policy, a documented business rationale, evenhanded enforcement, and—where required—a constitutional or statutory analysis. A clean decision path for employers. When a post or clip surfaces, move in sequence and record the answers. Concerted or not. Does the speech seek to involve coworkers about working conditions or present a group complaint to management? If yes, treat it as potentially protected and consult counsel before acting. Harassment or threats. Does the content target protected classes, include slurs, or threaten harm? If yes, act under anti-harassment and safety policies. Public or private employer. If public, apply the citizen-speech and disruption balancing; if private, proceed to step four. State protections. Do any off-duty or political-activity statutes apply? If yes, analyze the statute’s scope and exceptions. Contracts and past practice. Do CBA provisions, employment agreements, morals clauses, or progressive-discipline rules constrain options, and have you enforced similar cases consistently? Confidentiality and brand risk. Did the content reveal nonpublic information or predict reputational harm with customers, partners, or regulators? If yes, incorporate that rationale into your file. Proportional response. Choose counseling, suspension, or termination based on the conduct, the role, and the risk, and issue a neutral, policy-based communication. Policy and training steps that work. Rewrite social-media, civility, and confidentiality policies with concrete workplace examples. Cross-reference complaint channels and anti-retaliation language. Add explicit savings clauses for NLRA rights and any state-law protections. Train managers to escalate issues to HR and Legal, and to avoid engaging in online arguments. Maintain a short internal script and an external statement template for high-profile events. Consistency across viewpoints reduces legal risk and public blowback. Takeaway. Citizens hold broad speech rights against the state; employees do not gain broad job rights for speech in private workplaces. Your safest course is clear policy, measured triage, and disciplined, neutral enforcement, with special care for concerted activity, anti-harassment duties, state protections, and—if you are a public employer—the constitutional balancing test. When leaders understand what the law actually protects, they act faster and with less risk.
