As of October 14, 2026, D.C. Law 24-190 describes broad cannabis employment protections, but its main provisions apply only when their fiscal effect is included in an approved budget and financial plan, or 365 days after mayoral approval, whichever is later. The D.C. Office of Human Rights lists the Cannabis Employment Protections Act among laws awaiting funding for OHR enforcement. Separately, D.C. Code § 32-931 limits when an employer may test an applicant for marijuana, but it does not stop an employer from denying a position after a positive marijuana test.
What would the Cannabis Employment Protections Act cover?
As of October 14, 2026, the text of D.C. Law 24-190 says an employer may not refuse to hire, terminate, suspend, fail to promote, demote, or penalize someone based on cannabis use, medical-cannabis patient status, or cannabinoid metabolites in a required or requested drug test without additional factors indicating impairment.
In everyday terms, the law’s text separates a test result from signs that a person was impaired while working. It also covers applicants and unpaid interns in its definition of employee. But the law’s applicability section says these employment protections apply upon inclusion of their fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan, or 365 days after the Mayor approves the act, whichever is later. As of October 14, 2026, OHR says the Act is awaiting funding to be enforced by OHR.
The law also amends the D.C. Human Rights Act. Its text says an employer, employment agency, or labor organization must treat a qualifying patient’s medical-marijuana use for a disability in the same manner as legal use of a controlled substance prescribed by or taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, subject to listed exceptions.
If you are sorting out the larger federal picture, this guide on marijuana rescheduling explains why District rules and federal rules can point to different practical questions.
When can an employer still act?
As of October 14, 2026, Law 24-190 says an employer would not violate its employment-protection section when action is related to cannabis use and one of these conditions applies:
| Situation | What the law says |
|---|---|
| Safety-sensitive job | The employee is in a position designated as safety sensitive. |
| Federal requirement | The action is required by a federal statute, regulation, contract, or funding agreement. |
| Use or possession at work | The employee used, consumed, possessed, stored, delivered, transferred, displayed, transported, sold, purchased, or grew cannabis at work, while performing work, or during work hours. |
| Impairment while working | The employee shows specific, articulable symptoms while working or during work hours that substantially reduce job performance or interfere with workplace safety duties. |
The same law says it does not require an employer to permit or accommodate cannabis use, possession, or related conduct at the workplace, while performing work, or during work hours, except where another cited District provision requires it. So this law does not mean employees may use marijuana at work, and federal requirements are among the listed exceptions.
For a practical discussion with a pharmacist or prescriber about cannabis and other medicines, use this cannabis and medicines checklist.
Does D.C. drug test applicants for weed?
As of October 14, 2026, D.C. Code § 32-931 says an employer may test a prospective employee for marijuana use only after extending a conditional offer of employment, unless another law requires otherwise.
That is a timing rule. The same section says it does not affect workplace drug policies, require an employer to permit marijuana use or possession during employment, interfere with federal employment contracts, or prevent an employer from denying a position based on a positive marijuana test.
This is why § 32-931 and Law 24-190 should be read as different rules. Section 32-931 is a codified pre-offer testing restriction. Law 24-190 contains wider protections in its text, but, as of October 14, 2026, its cited applicability provision and OHR’s funding notice matter before treating those wider protections as enforceable through OHR.
A positive screening result can carry important consequences. A 2014 review in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology explains that immunoassay urine screens can produce false-positive results and that secondary analysis can be important before results are interpreted. If a test result affects your job, ask the employer or Medical Review Officer about the process that applies to your result and employment policy.
How do you raise a D.C. workplace complaint?
As of October 14, 2026, Law 24-190 directs enforcement of Title I through OHR, the Attorney General, and a private right of action once the applicable provisions apply. OHR’s local-laws page currently identifies the Cannabis Employment Protections Act as awaiting funding for enforcement by OHR.
The law’s complaint process says that after OHR issues a final determination and order, the non-prevailing party may ask the OHR Director to reconsider or reopen the case within 15 days, or seek judicial review in a court of competent jurisdiction. The law’s private cause of action must be brought within one year after the unlawful act, tolled while an OHR complaint is pending; the text here does not state an OHR complaint filing deadline. Keep records of the job posting, conditional offer, test notice, result, policy, and communications, then contact OHR, a union representative, HR, or an employment lawyer promptly to discuss the route and deadline that applies.
This is general information, not legal advice. Deadlines can be short, so talk to HR, a union representative, or an employment lawyer quickly.
By HealthDataConsortium.org Research Team
