The law firm that has brought suit against Walmart in California for wrongfully terminating an employee who tested positive for cannabis reports it has been successful in gaining settlements in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for employees, based on a law that Cal NORML sponsored in 2022.
WorkRight Law in Cerritos, CA made the news when it filed against Walmart in July, alleging the company illegally fired an employee who tested positive for a nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolite that showed up on his urine drug test, despite lacking evidence that he possessed or used cannabis at the workplace or showed any signs of impairment, Law360 reported.
John Campos was terminated after a lengthy tenure working for Walmart at its Porterville warehouse, solely based on a single post-accident urine drug test he had to undergo after a workplace incident, the suit claims. Campos explained he legally used cannabis during off-hours away from Walmart premises, and that he had never used, possessed or was under the influence of cannabis while at work.
After a minor workplace accident while operating a tractor, Campos was drug tested but Walmart administered no impairment or fitness-for-duty evaluation for Campos at the time, the suit says. Walmart reported to the California Employment Development Department that he was fired for failing a drug test, according to the complaint.
The case is John Campos v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc. et al., case number 1:26-cv-07133, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Ash Bhargava of WorkRight Law, Campos’ attorney, said, “Walmart’s decision reflects a broader pattern we see across California employers: blanket drug-testing policies that flag lawful, off-duty cannabis use rather than actual impairment, and that fall disproportionately on workers who use cannabis legally on their own time.”
Cal NORML spoke to Bhargava, an attorney who previously represented employers for 17 years. He shared that his clients are often subjected to post-accident drug testing, either urine tests or oral swab tests.
California’s employment discrimination law Government Code 12954, which became law in 2023 after Cal NORML successfully passed AB 2188, specifically forbids most employers in California from taking action against employees as a result of tests for inactive metabolites of THC, specifically urine and hair tests. Oral swab tests, which do test for active THC with a shorter window of detection, are permitted for pre-employment screening in the law, which also protects off-duty cannabis use.
Bhargava said that settlements in the cases his firm as brought on behalf of employees have ranged from $40,000 to $257,000, with higher figures for companies that use urine tests. None of the cases have gone to a jury trial.
Oral swab testing is a newer technology with varied detection times depending on the degree of sensitivity used. Bhargava said their detection window is 5-48 hours (or less), versus an impairment window of 2-5 hours. So, employees who fails an oral swab test aren’t necessarily impaired, but can still lose their jobs, worker’s compensation benefits and unemployment benefits, as well as future job prospects. He, like Cal NORML, advocates for impairment testing rather than chemical tests for workplace safety.
WorkRight Law handles both class actions and individual cases on a contingency basis. “If we don’t win, our clients don’t pay attorney’s fees,” said Bhargava. The firm is currently speaking with current and former Walmart employees in California who allege they were fired after testing positive for marijuana on a urine drug test that Walmart required following a workplace accident or injury. The firm also offers free consultations to any California worker who believes they were discriminated against during employment, or had a job offer rescinded, because of a positive urine-based marijuana test. You can reach WorkRight Law at (562) 328-2004, by email at [email protected], or at WorkRightLaw.com.
Meanwhile, specialty packaging manufacturer Novolex has been hit with a wrongful termination lawsuit by a man who claims his supervisor harassed him for his long hair, calling him a girl, and later fired him for marijuana use despite his having a medical cannabis permit, Law360 Reports.
Ex-employee Francisco Gutierrez filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Novolex Holdings LLC and its affiliate companies Pactiv LLC and Pactiv Evergreen Group Holdings Inc. Gutierrez is represented by Hekmat Kordab, Yadira De La Rosa and William Kordab of Kordab Law Offices. The case is Gutierrez v. Novolex Holdings LLC et al., case number 26NWCV03202, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Employees who are discriminated against over their off-duty cannabis use in California can file a complaint with the CA Civil Rights Department. The agency has reached at least one settlement for an employee. In a $2 million budget request for 12 positions to handle the extra workload from AB 2188, the CRD said it handled 347 complaints in FY 2024-25, with 25 cases investigated and 3 sent to mediation. Private legal action can be taken by individuals once a right to sue has been established with the CRD.