An Act to amend and reenact §§ 40.1-2, 40.1-2.1, and 40.1-27.4 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 40.1-22.2 and 40.1-29.01, relating to labor and employment provisions; application of law; protection of employees; definition of employer.
HB670 revises Virginia’s labor and employment laws to expand how the term “employer” is treated for certain workplace protections and to extend those protections to public-sector workers. The bill amends existing definitions in Title 40.1 and adds new sections stating that, for specified articles, the Commonwealth, its agencies, institutions, political subdivisions, and other public bodies are included within the definition of employer. It also clarifies that the Commonwealth and its agencies are not subject to civil, criminal, administrative, or other penalties under those articles.
A central substantive change is the expansion of Virginia’s cannabis-oil employment protection. The bill prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining, or discriminating against an employee for lawful use of cannabis oil under a valid written certification, while preserving employer authority to address work impairment, prohibit possession during work hours, and comply with federal law or federal funding requirements. It also creates a specific exception for defense industrial base employers and prospective employers, allowing them to refuse to hire or retain applicants or employees who test above specified THC thresholds. The bill includes a delayed effective date, providing that it does not take effect unless reenacted by the 2027 General Assembly session.
HB670 changes state employment law by broadening statutory coverage to public employers in selected labor articles and by expressly defining the Commonwealth and its subdivisions as employers for those purposes. It adds new statutory sections that make public bodies subject to the underlying protections while also shielding the Commonwealth and its agencies from penalties under those articles. The bill therefore affects state agencies, local governments, and other public bodies, as well as private employers and employees covered by the cannabis-oil protections.
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported but not without opposition. It advanced through committee and floor votes in both chambers, often with amendments or substitutes, and ultimately passed with majority support. The House and Senate both agreed to the Governor’s recommendations, indicating the measure was acceptable in revised form to enough members to secure final enactment. The pattern of votes also shows that the bill remained somewhat divisive, especially in the House and Senate floor votes where a substantial minority opposed it.
The main points of contention appear to have been the scope of employer liability and whether public employers should be covered by the bill’s protections. Another likely source of disagreement was the cannabis-oil provision itself, particularly the balance between employee protections and employer discretion to manage impairment, comply with federal law, and meet federal contracting or funding conditions. The special carve-out for defense industrial base employers also suggests concern about workplace safety, security, and federal standards in sensitive industries. Opposition likely came from members concerned about expanding employment protections, limiting employer authority, or imposing new obligations on public-sector employers.