Massachusetts Cannabis Laws: Protect Workers from Unfair Drug Tests | S.98/H.159 Update

February 16, 2026 discoverhiddenusacom Business

Nine years after cannabis legalization in Massachusetts, approximately two million workers and job seekers face potential unemployment due to positive cannabis tests, despite the fact that these tests do not indicate current impairment. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission reported that 35% of adults in the state used cannabis in 2022.

The Problem with Current Testing

Current cannabis testing methods detect metabolites that can remain present in a person’s system for weeks after any intoxicating effects have worn off. Unlike tests for alcohol or illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin, a positive cannabis test does not correlate with present impairment. In a 2017 ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court acknowledged “there is as yet no scientific agreement on whether, and, if so, to what extent, these types of tests are indicative of marijuana intoxication.”

Did You Know? Seven states, including California and Rhode Island, have already enacted legislation protecting employees from discrimination based on cannabis testing.

Legislative Efforts for Change

Identical bills, S.98 and H.159, have been introduced in the Massachusetts Legislature to address this issue. These bills aim to prevent employers from refusing to hire, terminating, or penalizing employees based solely on a positive cannabis test, unless there is reasonable suspicion of impairment on the job. The bills have received favorable reports from multiple committees in both 2024 and 2025, indicating legislative support.

How the Bills Would Work

If passed, S.98 / H.159 would allow individuals to file claims of discrimination through the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). The MCAD has experience mediating employment-related disputes and could potentially resolve claims without costly litigation. Employers who reject MCAD findings or settlement offers could face lawsuits, including liability for applicant-worker’s attorney fees and lost wages.

Expert Insight: The proposed legislation seeks to align employment practices with the reality of cannabis legalization, recognizing the distinction between past use and current impairment and potentially reducing legal risks for employers.

Potential Roadblocks and Next Steps

Despite the support for these bills, their passage is not guaranteed. The Massachusetts Legislature has historically addressed cannabis-related issues through broader, multi-issue legislation, often delaying consideration of new bills for several years. Currently, differing “modernization” bills are pending in the House and Senate. Unless constituents actively advocate for the passage of S.98 / H.159, legislative leaders may prioritize the modernization bills and postpone action on worker protections.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main goal of bills S.98 and H.159?

The bills aim to prevent employers from discriminating against workers or applicants based solely on a positive cannabis test, unless there is evidence of impairment at work.

How would claims of discrimination be handled?

Claims would be managed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), which has experience mediating employment-related disputes.

What happened in the 2017 Gerhardt case?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that there is no scientific consensus on whether cannabis tests accurately indicate current intoxication.

Will Massachusetts lawmakers prioritize worker protections alongside cannabis industry modernization efforts?