Effective April 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration moved marijuana dispensed through a qualifying state medical marijuana program into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Recreational marijuana remains illegal under federal law. These moves don’t require employers to abandon their drug and alcohol policies. But older policy language stating marijuana is “illegal under federal law” is no longer fully accurate. For HR professionals, the reclassification creates new compliance questions around drug testing, disability accommodations, and workplace policies that deserve prompt attention.

What Changed – and What Did Not
Medical marijuana authorized under state law – such as Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act – is now a Schedule III controlled substance, in the same category as other prescription drugs, such as prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines. Before this change, federal law treated all marijuana as Schedule I, meaning it had no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That is no longer the federal government’s position regarding qualifying medical marijuana. Recreational marijuana remains illegal under all circumstances under federal law. Employers may therefore continue to prohibit recreational use under their workplace policies. 

Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act: Existing Employer Obligations
Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act already imposes meaningful obligations on employers. The Act prohibits employers from discharging, threatening, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating against an employee solely because the employee is certified to use medical marijuana. Employers are not required to accommodate medical marijuana use on workplace property. They may discipline employees who are under the influence at work when their conduct falls below the applicable standard of care.

The Act also preserves room for safety-sensitive positions. Employers may prohibit employees from performing duties that are life-threatening or could create a public health or safety risk while under the influence of medical marijuana. These prohibitions are not considered adverse employment actions, even if they cause financial harm to the employee. This exception matters for employers with roles involving transportation, heavy machinery, healthcare, laboratory work, public safety, or similar functions.

The ADA Drug-Testing Problem
The reclassification has significant implications for employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, a test to detect the illegal use of drugs is not treated as a medical examination. The ADA defines “illegal use of drugs” as use that is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act, while excluding uses authorized by the CSA and drugs taken under a licensed health care professional’s supervision. Before April 2026, employers could treat marijuana testing as comfortably within the ADA’s “illegal drug use” carve-out. That assumption is now less secure. Employers should expect the argument that testing designed to detect qualifying medical marijuana use no longer fits within the ADA’s medical-exam safe harbor. This issue is not yet settled, but it is a real litigation and compliance risk employers should not ignore.

At the very least, existing ADA guidance makes clear that if a drug test reveals a lawfully prescribed drug or other medical information, that information must be treated as confidential. Employers should review not only whether they test for THC, but also why, when, whom they test, how results are reviewed, what follow-up questions are asked, and who receives the information.

DOT-Regulated Employers: A Separate Analysis
For employers with employees subject to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, the picture remains in flux. As attorney Joshua Schwartz noted in December 2025, rescheduling may eventually limit the ability to use DOT regulations to disqualify medical marijuana users from CDL and other safety-sensitive positions subject to DOT regulations. Past DOT guidance suggested that rescheduling alone would not automatically eliminate marijuana from DOT testing panels, though that guidance is not entirely consistent with the testing regulations themselves. In any event, DOT-regulated employers should continue following current testing rules while monitoring developments closely.

What Employers Should Do Now
For now, there are a series of steps that Pennsylvania employers can take to address the changes caused by the reclassification of medical marijuana as a Schedule III controlled substance:

• Review and update drug and alcohol policies to distinguish qualifying state medical marijuana from recreational marijuana. Revise blanket statements that marijuana is “illegal under federal law under all circumstances” to reflect the current legal landscape.
• Audit drug-testing protocols with employment counsel. Evaluate whether current practices may expose the organization to ADA claims when tests reveal lawful medical marijuana use.
• Continue prohibiting impairment, recreational use, and unauthorized possession in the workplace.
• Evaluate accommodation requests individually rather than relying on outdated federal-law assumptions.
• Ensure that policies for safety-sensitive roles are grounded in the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act’s safety exceptions rather than blanket prohibitions.
• Train HR personnel, supervisors, and counsel on the changed legal landscape.

Bottom Line
The April 2026 federal reclassification is a significant development for all Pennsylvania employers. It does not legalize recreational marijuana. It does not require employers to permit medical marijuana use on their premises. But it makes categorical statements about marijuana and federal illegality harder to defend, particularly when addressing disability accommodation requests or reviewing drug-testing practices. Now is the time to update policies, review testing protocols, and ensure that HR professionals and legal counsel are working from the same current framework.

Employers with employees working in other states should also be mindful that those jurisdictions may impose different requirements regarding medical or recreational marijuana, employee protections, and drug testing. A one-size-fits-all policy may create risk if it does not account for these state-specific obligations.

Barley Snyder’s Employment Practice Group regularly advises employers on medical marijuana, drug testing, and workplace accommodations. For guidance tailored to your organization, please contact attorneys David Freedman, Sarah Doyle, Joshua Schwartz, or any member of our group.