You Tested Positive. You Were Never Impaired at Work. California Law May Have Something to Say About That.

You used cannabis over the weekend. You came to work Monday and did your job. Your employer ran a drug test and the result came back positive. You were terminated.

That pattern shows up often enough that California now has a statute specifically designed to address it.

Assembly Bill 2188, effective January 1, 2024, amended the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to prohibit most employers from discriminating against an employee or applicant based on off-duty cannabis use or based on a drug test that detects non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites. The distinction the law draws is between impairment and presence. Cannabis metabolites can remain detectable for days or weeks after use. Detecting them says nothing about whether someone was impaired on the job.

AB 2188 does not protect impairment at work. If an employer has reasonable suspicion of on-the-job impairment and uses a test that detects psychoactive THC, California law does not stand in the way. What the statute targets is the situation where a standard urine or hair test finds non-psychoactive metabolites from lawful off-duty use and the employer treats that result as grounds for termination.

There are exceptions, and they are specific. Construction and building trades are exempt. Positions that require a federal background investigation or security clearance are exempt. Employees subject to state or federal testing requirements, including commercial drivers under Department of Transportation regulations and commercial pilots, are exempt. Federal contractors whose contracts require drug testing are exempt. An employer cannot simply designate a position “safety-sensitive” and rely on that label to create an exemption; the exemption has to flow from an actual state or federal testing obligation.

If you were terminated following a cannabis test result, whether AB 2188 applies depends on your role, your employer’s status, and what the test actually detected. These are fact-specific questions, and California has deadlines on workplace discrimination claims that begin running before most people realize a claim exists.

If the pattern sounds familiar, contact Michael Trust Law for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine whether you have a claim — and how much of a conversation that takes.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts. No lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.