Ohio: Marijuana Updates

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in OH

EFFECTIVE MAR 20, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look Ohio’s SB 56 restricts intoxicating hemp sales, imposes new criminal penalties, and bans all public and workplace marijuana consumption. The law reinforces employer protections, including the right to maintain drug-free workplace policies, discipline or terminate employees for prohibited use, and deny unemployment benefits for violations.

Discussion

Effective March 20, 2026, Ohio’s SB 56 brings sweeping changes to the state’s cannabis framework, expanding regulatory oversight and limiting access to unregulated intoxicating hemp products.

 

The law places Ohio’s adult‑use marijuana program under the Division of Cannabis Control and bans the sale of intoxicating hemp products outside licensed marijuana dispensaries, significantly tightening the state’s regulatory structure. It also creates new criminal penalties, making it illegal to possess cannabis legally purchased in another state, prohibiting all public consumption (including edibles), and requiring all cannabis carried in a vehicle to be stored unopened in the trunk or the vehicle’s rearmost compartment.

 

Of note for employers, the law expressly prohibits individuals from smoking, vaporizing, or combusting marijuana in a “public place” or a “place of employment,” reaffirming that employers may maintain drug‑free workplace rules and ban all forms of consumption at work. It also prohibits businesses operating public places from knowingly allowing adult‑use or homegrown marijuana consumption on their premises, which may affect hospitality, entertainment, transportation, and other consumer‑facing industries.

 

SB 56 also reinforces the rights of employers to discipline or terminate employees for marijuana use that violates company policy and clarifies the consequences for employees who violate them. Specifically, an employee discharged for marijuana use in violation of a workplace policy will be ineligible both to serve a waiting period for unemployment compensation and to collect benefits during the period of disqualification.

 

Finally, employers should note that cannabis advocacy groups in Ohio are pursuing a statewide referendum to block SB 56 from taking effect, creating some uncertainty about the law’s future. Notwithstanding, SB 56 is set to go into effect on March 20, 2026, unless and until it is formally paused or overturned.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update drug-free workplace policies, if applicable.
2. Continue to monitor future developments.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on drug-free workplace requirements.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase

Pennsylvania: CHRIA Protects Voluntarily Offered Criminal History Information

APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in PA

EFFECTIVE JAN 28, 2026

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Quick Look The Third Circuit has expanded Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act, holding that criminal history information is protected even when an applicant voluntarily discloses it.

Discussion

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has expanded the scope of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) by holding that the law may apply even when an employer receives criminal history information directly from a job applicant rather than through a background check.

 

The case, Phath v. Central Transport, arose after a driver applicant disclosed during the hiring process that he had a 2008 armed‑robbery conviction. After learning of the conviction, Central Transport informed him that he would not be hired, prompting the applicant to sue under CHRIA for allegedly relying on criminal history information that did not relate to his suitability for the position and for failing to provide the required written notice.

 

A federal district court dismissed the suit in 2024, concluding that CHRIA did not apply because the employer obtained the information through the applicant’s voluntary disclosure rather than from a state criminal history record. On appeal, however, the Third Circuit rejected that interpretation, instead holding that CHRIA’s protections turn on the type of information received, not the source from which the employer obtained it. Because felony convictions are within the definition of “criminal history record information,” the court found that such information does not lose its protected status simply because an applicant self‑discloses it rather than the employer obtaining it through a formal background check.

 

The court also addressed CHRIA’s exemptions under Section 9104, which exclude certain public sources such as court records and police blotters. Importantly, the court held that those exemptions did not apply in this case because the employer did not obtain information from an exempt source, but rather from the applicant himself, a source that does not appear among the statutory exemptions. As a result, the court concluded that the applicant’s disclosure still qualified as criminal history record information for purposes of CHRIA.

 

The ruling confirms that information may be protected under the statute even when voluntarily disclosed by an applicant, and employers may consider felony or misdemeanor convictions only when they relate to the applicant’s suitability for the position.

 

Action Items

1. Review and update hiring and application procedures for compliance with CHRIA requirements, even when information is voluntarily disclosed.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase

Discussion

Utah: Failure to Accommodate Request for a Medical Alert Dog in Employee Housing

On January 13, 2026, in O’Connor v. Collett’s Mountain Resorts, Inc., a Utah federal district court said that where housing was made available only to employees, it was considered a covered privilege of employment for purposes of a disability accommodation. Meaning, when the employee requested an accommodation to allow his diabetes service dog to live in the employer-provided housing, it was a protected activity. Further, the plaintiff alleged the employer terminated him shortly after saying that he needed a service dog for his disability, and the reasons the employer gave for the termination all stem from the requested accommodation. Ultimately, the court said that sufficient information was pled to claim failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation claims under federal and state law.

 

---

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase