In this Filter magazine article, Shay Aaron Gilmore is quoted as a California attorney explaining the employment-law consequences of the state’s evolving approach to off-duty cannabis use — specifically the protections created by Assembly Bill 2188, which took effect January 1, 2024, and made it unlawful for most California employers to discriminate against an employee for off-the-job cannabis use. The article uses Gilmore’s analysis to help readers understand what the new law does and, just as importantly, what it does not do.
Gilmore’s quoted commentary draws a crucial and often-misunderstood distinction. He points out that possession and use of cannabis on the job, as well as actual impairment at work, remain legitimate grounds for termination even under the new law — AB 2188 does not give employees a right to be impaired on the job or to use cannabis at work. What the law changes is the treatment of lawful off-duty use: an employer generally may no longer take adverse action against an employee simply because a drug test detects non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites, which can linger long after any impairment has passed.
The article then explores the harder question at the center of many disputes: what happens when an employer, after January 2024, fires an employee who used cannabis lawfully off the job but whom the employer claims was impaired at work. Gilmore explains that such an employee “would have a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act as amended by AB 2188,” and that in the absence of evidence of actual impairment, the employee should have a good chance of prevailing. But he candidly notes the other side: if the employer has corroborating evidence — such as witness testimony or video showing the employee appearing impaired — combined with a positive drug test, the employer becomes more likely to prevail.
This balanced, practical analysis is characteristic of Gilmore’s approach: he gives readers a realistic picture of their rights and the evidentiary realities that shape outcomes, rather than an oversimplified answer. The article demonstrates that Gilmore’s expertise extends to the employment-law dimension of cannabis — an area of growing importance as workplace-cannabis protections mature — and that publications covering these issues rely on him for clear, accurate guidance.