Employment Discrimination - Fire and Rescue Public Safety Employees - Use of Medical Cannabis
HB 797 would amend Maryland’s employment discrimination law to protect certain fire and rescue public safety employees from adverse employment actions based solely on their lawful use of medical cannabis, so long as they hold a valid written certification. The bill defines covered employees as firefighters, EMTs, cardiac rescue technicians, and paramedics employed by a municipality, county, the State, the State Airport Authority, or a fire control district. It also ties the protection to Maryland’s medical cannabis framework by referencing the existing definitions of qualifying patient, certifying provider, and written certification in the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article.
Under the bill, an employer may not discipline, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against a covered employee, or limit employment opportunities, because the employee possesses a valid written certification or tests positive for cannabis components or metabolites while holding that certification. At the same time, the bill preserves employer authority to prohibit employees from using cannabis while on duty and to adopt policies preventing employees from performing duties while impaired. If a fire and rescue public safety employee reports to work impaired by cannabis, the employer must report the incident to the State Emergency Medical Services Board. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 797 would amend § 20-606 of the State Government Article, Maryland’s employment discrimination statute, by adding a new protected category-specific rule for fire and rescue public safety employees who use medical cannabis. It does not broadly legalize workplace cannabis use; instead, it creates a limited anti-discrimination protection while preserving employer safety rules and compliance with federal law. The bill also relies on definitions in the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis Article, linking employment protections to Maryland’s medical cannabis certification system. Affected parties include public-sector fire and rescue employers, covered emergency responders, and the State Emergency Medical Services Board, which would receive reports of impairment incidents.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill. The House committee report was favorable, the House adopted the measure, and the Senate status indicates a favorable report by Finance. No committee transcript or recorded vote details are provided, so there is no evidence in the record supplied here of organized opposition or divided floor debate. Overall, the bill appears to have been received as a targeted workplace protection for public safety employees who are medical cannabis patients, with an emphasis on balancing employee rights and operational safety.
The main point of contention is the balance between anti-discrimination protections and public safety/employer authority. Supporters of the bill appear to favor protecting fire and rescue personnel from discipline based solely on lawful medical cannabis use, while the bill’s safeguards reflect concern that such employees must not perform duties while impaired or use cannabis on duty. Another potential issue is federal compliance: the bill explicitly states it does not require employers to violate federal law or lose federal monetary or licensing benefits, indicating sensitivity to concerns that cannabis-related protections could conflict with federal workplace or funding rules. The reporting requirement to the State Emergency Medical Services Board also suggests a safety oversight concern specific to emergency response roles.