2222222222

Workplace Drug Policy

Cannabis Shift Impacting Employers

Decisions on marijuana policy are shifting, leaving employers concerned about maintaining safe and drug-free workplaces.
By: | July 28, 2017 • 4 min read

Marijuana policy made headlines twice in one week, on matters that may be potential game changers for employers.

On July 17, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of a woman fired for using medical marijuana in Barbuto vs. Advantage Sales and Marketing. She will be able to sue her former employer for discrimination. One week later, the head of Maine’s Department of Labor reported to a legislative panel that state employers would be hamstrung by a prohibition on drug testing once the new recreational marijuana bill goes into effect.

Massachusetts: A Closer Look

In 2013, medical marijuana became legal to use in Massachusetts. In the summer of 2014, Cristina Barbuto was offered an entry-level position at Advantage Sales and Marketing so long as she passed a mandatory drug test. Barbuto informed Advantage that her test would come back positive because she required medical marijuana to help with her Crohn’s disease, a debilitating gastrointestinal condition.

Advertisement




The supervisor at Advantage told Barbuto that her medical marijuana use would not be a problem. Barbuto went through training, received her uniform and was assigned a location for her employment. After one day of work, Advantage’s human resources representative informed Barbuto she was terminated after testing positive for marijuana. The rep said the company followed federal law, which prohibits the substance in all forms, and not the state law.

Barbuto filed a complaint of discrimination against Advantage. The company argued that Barbuto could not allege she qualified as disabled, because her only accommodation — use of medical marijuana — was a federal crime. Additionally, her termination directly stemmed from failure to pass a drug test and not from her supposed handicap.

The court ruled that under Massachusetts law, use and possession of medical marijuana was “as lawful as the use and possession of any other prescribed medication,” and that the federal illegality of the drug did not make it unreasonable as an accommodation.

The court also took issue the company’s knee-jerk decision to terminate Barbuto.

“Even if the accommodation of the use of medical marijuana were facially unreasonable, which it is not, the employer here still owed the plaintiff an obligation under [Massachusetts law] before it terminated her employment, to participate in the interactive process to explore with her whether there was an alternative, equally effective medication she could use that was not prohibited by the employer’s drug policy,” the court said.

Failure to explore a reasonable accommodation alone is sufficient to support a claim of discrimination, it said.

The employer will have to prove Barbuto’s use of the medication caused undue hardship to the business in order to justify her termination.

Meanwhile, in Maine …

As was the case in many states during last year’s political race, legal use of recreational marijuana was up for debate in Maine. In November, the state passed the bill. Now, Maine is working to set up the parameters on the recreational drug, diving into how employers will be affected.

On July 24, Julie Rabinowitz, the state’s Department of Labor director of policy, operations and communications, addressed the state legislative committee formed to create the regulatory framework surrounding recreational use of marijuana. She argued employers were getting the short end of the stick.

The court ruled that under Massachusetts law, use and possession of medical marijuana was “as lawful as the use and possession of any other prescribed medication,” and that the federal illegality of the drug did not make it unreasonable as an accommodation.

Businesses won’t be able to reject applicants for testing positive for marijuana because the applicant might use it for medicinal purposes, she explained. Likewise, employers won’t be able to fire an employee for a positive drug test. Instead, the employer will have to prove the employee was impaired on the job.

Rabinowitz went on to discuss how employers in other states with legalized marijuana have more rights, citing Massachusetts, California and Colorado as examples. She urged Maine’s legislative committee to change the law to give employers more rights when it comes to the hiring and discharge of employees who test positive for marijuana.

The final decision was deferred to the legislature’s labor committee and will be a hot topic until the law goes into effect in February 2018.

What This Could Mean Long-Term

The tides are turning on how cannabis is perceived by the general population. Massachusetts and Maine aren’t the only states updating marijuana laws; 29 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Of those, eight states have legalized the use of recreational marijuana — four in the last year alone.

Advertisement




Other states have enacted decriminalization laws for possession of the substance, which treats an offense like a minor traffic violation — no threat of jail time and a reasonable fine.

In workers’ compensation, numerous cases debating whether an employer should accommodate for medical marijuana have been brought to the fore. The most significant sticking point has been the discrepancy between federal and state laws. Prior to Barbuto, courts tended to defer to the supremacy of federal law. Barbuto, however, establishes a precedent for courts to take a different approach.

Employers wishing to review their own state’s medical and recreational laws can do so here.

Autumn Heisler is the digital producer and a staff writer at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Cyber Resilience

No, Seriously. You Need a Comprehensive Cyber Incident Response Plan Before It’s Too Late.

Awareness of cyber risk is increasing, but some companies may be neglecting to prepare adequate response plans that could save them millions. 
By: | June 1, 2018 • 7 min read

To minimize the financial and reputational damage from a cyber attack, it is absolutely critical that businesses have a cyber incident response plan.

“Sadly, not all yet do,” said David Legassick, head of life sciences, tech and cyber, CNA Hardy.

Advertisement




In the event of a breach, a company must be able to quickly identify and contain the problem, assess the level of impact, communicate internally and externally, recover where possible any lost data or functionality needed to resume business operations and act quickly to manage potential reputational risk.

This can only be achieved with help from the right external experts and the design and practice of a well-honed internal response.

The first step a company must take, said Legassick, is to understand its cyber exposures through asset identification, classification, risk assessment and protection measures, both technological and human.

According to Raf Sanchez, international breach response manager, Beazley, cyber-response plans should be flexible and applicable to a wide range of incidents, “not just a list of consecutive steps.”

They also should bring together key stakeholders and specify end goals.

Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions

With bad actors becoming increasingly sophisticated and often acting in groups, attack vectors can hit companies from multiple angles simultaneously, meaning a holistic approach is essential, agreed Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions.

“Collaboration is key — you have to take silos down and work in a cross-functional manner.”

This means assembling a response team including individuals from IT, legal, operations, risk management, HR, finance and the board — each of whom must be well drilled in their responsibilities in the event of a breach.

“You can’t pick your players on the day of the game,” said Hogg. “Response times are critical, so speed and timing are of the essence. You should also have a very clear communication plan to keep the CEO and board of directors informed of recommended courses of action and timing expectations.”

People on the incident response team must have sufficient technical skills and access to critical third parties to be able to make decisions and move to contain incidents fast. Knowledge of the company’s data and network topology is also key, said Legassick.

“Perhaps most important of all,” he added, “is to capture in detail how, when, where and why an incident occurred so there is a feedback loop that ensures each threat makes the cyber defense stronger.”

Cyber insurance can play a key role by providing a range of experts such as forensic analysts to help manage a cyber breach quickly and effectively (as well as PR and legal help). However, the learning process should begin before a breach occurs.

Practice Makes Perfect

“Any incident response plan is only as strong as the practice that goes into it,” explained Mike Peters, vice president, IT, RIMS — who also conducts stress testing through his firm Sentinel Cyber Defense Advisors.

Advertisement




Unless companies have an ethical hacker or certified information security officer on board who can conduct sophisticated simulated attacks, Peters recommended they hire third-party experts to test their networks for weaknesses, remediate these issues and retest again for vulnerabilities that haven’t been patched or have newly appeared.

“You need to plan for every type of threat that’s out there,” he added.

Hogg agreed that bringing third parties in to conduct tests brings “fresh thinking, best practice and cross-pollination of learnings from testing plans across a multitude of industries and enterprises.”

“Collaboration is key — you have to take silos down and work in a cross-functional manner.” — Jason J. Hogg, CEO, Aon Cyber Solutions

Legassick added that companies should test their plans at least annually, updating procedures whenever there is a significant change in business activity, technology or location.

“As companies expand, cyber security is not always front of mind, but new operations and territories all expose a company to new risks.”

For smaller companies that might not have the resources or the expertise to develop an internal cyber response plan from whole cloth, some carriers offer their own cyber risk resources online.

Evan Fenaroli, an underwriting product manager with the Philadelphia Insurance Companies (PHLY), said his company hosts an eRiskHub, which gives PHLY clients a place to start looking for cyber event response answers.

That includes access to a pool of attorneys who can guide company executives in creating a plan.

“It’s something at the highest level that needs to be a priority,” Fenaroli said. For those just getting started, Fenaroli provided a checklist for consideration:

  • Purchase cyber insurance, read the policy and understand its notice requirements.
  • Work with an attorney to develop a cyber event response plan that you can customize to your business.
  • Identify stakeholders within the company who will own the plan and its execution.
  • Find outside forensics experts that the company can call in an emergency.
  • Identify a public relations expert who can be called in the case of an event that could be leaked to the press or otherwise become newsworthy.

“When all of these things fall into place, the outcome is far better in that there isn’t a panic,” said Fenaroli, who, like others, recommends the plan be tested at least annually.

Cyber’s Physical Threat

With the digital and physical worlds converging due to the rise of the Internet of Things, Hogg reminded companies: “You can’t just test in the virtual world — testing physical end-point security is critical too.”

Advertisement




How that testing is communicated to underwriters should also be a key focus, said Rich DePiero, head of cyber, North America, Swiss Re Corporate Solutions.

Don’t just report on what went well; it’s far more believable for an underwriter to hear what didn’t go well, he said.

“If I hear a client say it is perfect and then I look at some of the results of the responses to breaches last year, there is a disconnect. Help us understand what you learned and what you worked out. You want things to fail during these incident response tests, because that is how we learn,” he explained.

“Bringing in these outside firms, detailing what they learned and defining roles and responsibilities in the event of an incident is really the best practice, and we are seeing more and more companies do that.”

Support from the Board

Good cyber protection is built around a combination of process, technology, learning and people. While not every cyber incident needs to be reported to the boardroom, senior management has a key role in creating a culture of planning and risk awareness.

David Legassick, head of life sciences, tech and cyber, CNA Hardy

“Cyber is a boardroom risk. If it is not taken seriously at boardroom level, you are more than likely to suffer a network breach,” Legassick said.

However, getting board buy-in or buy-in from the C-suite is not always easy.

“C-suite executives often put off testing crisis plans as they get in the way of the day job. The irony here is obvious given how disruptive an incident can be,” said Sanchez.

“The C-suite must demonstrate its support for incident response planning and that it expects staff at all levels of the organization to play their part in recovering from serious incidents.”

“What these people need from the board is support,” said Jill Salmon, New York-based vice president, head of cyber/tech/MPL, Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance.

“I don’t know that the information security folks are looking for direction from the board as much as they are looking for support from a resources standpoint and a visibility standpoint.

“They’ve got to be aware of what they need and they need to have the money to be able to build it up to that level,” she said.

Without that support, according to Legassick, failure to empower and encourage the IT team to manage cyber threats holistically through integration with the rest of the organization, particularly risk managers, becomes a common mistake.

He also warned that “blame culture” can prevent staff from escalating problems to management in a timely manner.

Collaboration and Communication

Given that cyber incident response truly is a team effort, it is therefore essential that a culture of collaboration, preparation and practice is embedded from the top down.

Advertisement




One of the biggest tripping points for companies — and an area that has done the most damage from a reputational perspective — is in how quickly and effectively the company communicates to the public in the aftermath of a cyber event.

Salmon said of all the cyber incident response plans she has seen, the companies that have impressed her most are those that have written mock press releases and rehearsed how they are going to respond to the media in the aftermath of an event.

“We have seen so many companies trip up in that regard,” she said. “There have been examples of companies taking too long and then not explaining why it took them so long. It’s like any other crisis — the way that you are communicating it to the public is really important.” &

Antony Ireland is a London-based financial journalist. He can be reached at [email protected] Dan Reynolds is editor-in-chief of Risk & Insurance. He can be reached at [email protected]