Connecticut Passes Law Legalizing Cannabis

July 1, 2021

Connecticut passed a new law legalizing cannabis. Effective July 1, 2021, individuals will be able to lawfully possess, use, and consume recreational cannabis.


Smoking Restrictions

The law contains provisions restricting smoking that will affect employers. These provisions will go into effect October 1, 2021.

All employers must ban smoking and the use of electronic nicotine and cannabis vaping products in any area of their facility. Employers can no longer designate a smoking room for employees. The law applies to the inside of buildings as well as 25 feet from any doorway, window, or vent. Exceptions are limited and include tobacco or cannabis research facilities and specific licensed establishments. Employers also have the option to designate their entire property as a nonsmoking area.


Employment-Related Provisions

Another section of the law contains several provisions that will affect employers and their employment policies. These provisions will be effective July 1, 2022.


  • Employers can implement policies prohibiting the use of cannabis by employees, except for qualified patients under the state’s medical marijuana laws. Any such policy must be in writing and be made available to employees and prospective employees before it goes into effect.


  • Employers cannot terminate or take any adverse action against an employee because the employee uses cannabis outside the workplace, except when an employer has an established policy in place. 


  • Employers cannot terminate or take any adverse action against an employee or prospective employee for using cannabis prior to employment, unless it would put the employer in violation of a federal contract. 


  • The law affirms that employers have the right to maintain a drug and alcohol-free workplace and that employers may take adverse action when they have a reasonable suspicion of an employee’s cannabis use while working or when an employee shows “specific, articulable symptoms” of cannabis use while working. 


  • Employers can terminate or take adverse action against an employee after a positive drug test if the employer has a reasonable suspicion the employee is using cannabis at work, if the testing was part of an established random drug testing policy, or if the testing was for a prospective employee with a conditional job offer.


Certain employers are exempt, including: mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, transportation/delivery, educational services, healthcare or social services, and justice, public order, and safety activities.


The law also exempts certain employee positions, including: firefighters, EMTs, police officers, positions requiring operation of a motor vehicle that requires drug testing under state or federal law, positions requiring certification of completion of a course in construction safety and health approved by OSHA, positions requiring supervision or care of children, medical patients or vulnerable persons, positions for which the law would conflict with federal law, positions funded by a federal grant, or if the provisions would conflict with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, and positions that an employer determines have the potential to adversely impact the health or safety of employees or the public.


Individuals aggrieved by an employer’s violation of the law can bring a civil action in superior court and may be awarded reinstatement their job or job offer, back pay, and attorney’s fees.

 

For any questions or concerns about this new Connecticut law, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.