Hartford Business Journal

HartfordBusiness.com | March 8, 2021 | Hartford Business Journal 17 C onnecticut this year has its best chance yet to legalize recreational marijuana as Gov. Ned Lamont and top Democratic lawmakers favor the move. But the business community still has its concerns, though its stance against legalization may not be as strong as it was in the past. In fact, an increasing number of employers, legal experts say, view recreational pot legalization as inevitable, but want workplace safeguards put in place. The General Assembly is currently debating two bills — one from Gov. Ned Lamont, the other from House Democrats — that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana, following in the footsteps of 15 other states, including, most recently, tri-state sister New Jersey. But some Connecticut employers worry about how legalization may affect practices like pre-employment drug screening, and diminish workforce development efforts. "My take from employers is they want to be able to decide that they will not be able to hire someone for their drug use," said attorney Patrick McHale, a partner at Hartford labor and employment law firm Kainen, Escalera & McHale PC. The Connecticut Business & Industry Association, which represents many manufacturers in the state, has honed in on drug testing as a concern surrounding legalization. CBIA hasn't taken a position for or against recreational pot use, but it does oppose part of a House bill that would ban employers from discriminating against workers for off-hours marijuana use. CBIA President and CEO Chris DiPentima said manufacturing and construction companies that have federal contracts are required by federal law to test workers for marijuana use and dismiss those who test positive. Some legal marijuana states have included cutouts for such companies while others, like Massachusetts, do not specifically bar employers from testing and firing for marijuana use, and instead deal with drug-testing issues on a case-by-case basis. East Hartford jet-engine maker Pratt & Whitney, which receives billions of dollars in federal contracts every year, submitted testimony against the House bill, arguing "the inability to deny employment and prohibit employees from using marijuana at or outside of work would likely shrink the number of workers who qualify to work on federal contracts, and could negatively affect worker safety." DiPentima said legalizing marijuana could reduce an already shallow pool of people eligible for open manufacturing jobs. "If we're disqualifying people because they failed a drug test because marijuana is now legal, now that applicant pool is smaller," DiPentima said. "We take a current workforce development issue and we make it a lot tougher." A carve out Lamont's proposal gives employers — particularly those with federal contracts — greater latitude to test for marijuana use and take action based on those results. It also allows businesses to maintain drug-free workplaces and fire employees who are impaired at work. The more flexible approach has drawn praise from business executives like Charles Daniels, who is the chief financial officer of Middlebury-based plastic molds manufacturer Wepco Plastics Inc. During a recent roundtable Sarah Skubas Charles Daniels, chief financial officer of Middlebury-based manufacturer Wepco Plastics Inc., favors Gov. Ned Lamont's marijuana legalization proposal. HBJ FILE PHOTO Pot Debate Employers more open to recreational marijuana legalization, but concerns over drug testing, other issues persist By Sean Teehan steehan@hartfordbusiness.com Gov. Ned Lamont's marijuana employer protections Business groups have raised concerns about a House bill legalizing recreational marijuana, but are more in favor of Gov. Ned Lamont's proposal because it grants some employer protections related to drug testing and other issues. Here's what Lamont's proposal says: • A drug test that solely results in a positive for THC-COOH and not any active cannabinoid (typically a urine test) shall not be evidence of impairment and shall not result in a negative action by a landlord, educational institution or employer. • However, certain types of employers, such as employers with federal contracts or that have safety-critical positions like commercial drivers, construction workers and medical professionals, are exempted from these provisions. • All employers are allowed to maintain drug-free workplaces and take employment action against a worker who is impaired at work.

• Cover