An Oklahoma state court held that a positive post-accident drug test for marijuana did not prove that marijuana use caused the accident, and therefore the claimant was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. Rose v. Berry Plastics Corp. et al., 2019 OK Civ. App. 55 (Ok. Civ. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2019).
Articles About Oklahoma Labor And Employment Law.
On March 12, 2019, Oklahoma Governor Stitt signed into law the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Use and Protection Act. The Act, better known as the medical marijuana “Unity Bill,” amends the state’s medical marijuana law to create a system for implementing dispensary licenses and to amend and clarify who must be accommodated in the employment context if they are medical marijuana users.
Oklahoma became the 30th state to pass a medical marijuana law. Voters approved the measure on June 26, 2018.
A former employee’s claim that she was pregnant and subject to lifting restrictions failed to allege a valid claim under the Americas with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. LaCount v. South Lewis SH OPCO, LLC, Case No. 16-CV-0545-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. May 5, 2017).
Weeks after Wisconsin and Tennessee1 enacted their own legislation aimed at restricting access by employers to applicants’ and employees’ personal online content, Oklahoma and Louisiana have followed suit, further complicating the patchwork of state password protection laws already in place.2
Oklahoma has joined the growing list of states prohibiting employers from requesting or demanding access to the personal social media accounts of employees or job applicants. Signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin, H.B. 2372, becomes effective November 1, 2014.
Oklahoma has substantially revised its Standards For Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. Â§Â§ 551 â€“ 563, effective November 1, 2011. The law has been simplified and eliminates a number of requirements previously imposed on employers.
A federal court in Oklahoma has held that an employer willfully violated the state’s drug testing law, making it liable for damages, after it denied employment to an applicant for testing positive for a drug that is not among those listed in state regulations as approved for employment substance abuse testing