Drug Testing in Maine and Oklahoma: New Compliance Obligations for Employers

On April 13, Maine Governor Janet Mills signed House Bill 1425 into law, which amends Maine’s Substance Abuse Testing Law (SATL) by introducing several new procedural requirements that take effect on July 29, 2026 and place greater restrictions on employers that require drug tests. On April 17, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed amendments to the employment provisions of the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) that take effect on November 1, 2026, and generally provide employers with more discretion to base adverse actions on positive test results. However, the amendments also limit employer discretion when it comes to marijuana testing for safety-sensitive positions.

UPDATES TO MAINE’S SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING LAW

The Maine SATL applies to employers that employ 20 or more individuals and that require drug testing for applicants or employees. The SATL already includes rigorous restrictions on workplace drug testing, including the requirement for employers to send a copy of the final written policy to the Maine Department of Labor (DOL) for review and approval prior to implementing the policy.

Further, even once a policy has been approved, an employer may not implement any changes to it unless the DOL approves those changes. The law also regulates sample collection, laboratory standards, confirmatory testing, and procedures for medical review officers (MROs).

However, beginning on July 29, employers will be required to adhere to additional procedural requirements, including the requirement to document, in writing, and prior to the administration of any reasonable suspicion drug test, the basis for the employer’s suspicion that an employee is impaired while working. Specifically, under the amended SATL, employers will be required to prepare a written statement outlining the “observable behavior” supporting a reasonable suspicion test and must provide this statement to the employee before administering a drug or alcohol test.

“Observable behavior” is now defined as “observable physical, behavioral and psychological signs that provide a reasonable suspicion that an employee is impaired by substance use, including signs regarding appearance, behavior, speech and smell that are usually associated with substance use.” The amendments also define and rename certain additional key terms. For example, the amendments define “arbitrary” drug testing as:

[T]he frequency of substance use testing and the selection of persons being tested are based on a set event, such as an employment anniversary or promotion. Arbitrary testing also includes client-required or site-specific testing based on criteria unrelated to substance use, such as when a client requires testing prior to work on a project or specific site.

This is an addition to Maine’s current law, which does not define “arbitrary.” Random or arbitrary testing of employees is still permitted if “[t]he employee works in a position the nature of which would create an unreasonable threat to the health or safety of the public or the employee's coworkers if the employee were under the influence of a substance.” The amended SATL maintains this provision, while adding that “arbitrary testing may be conducted only on an employee whose position is of a nature that could pose a potential threat to the health or safety of the public or coworkers if the employee is under the influence of a substance.” Additionally, “probable cause” is now labeled “reasonable suspicion.”

The amendments also strengthen employee protections during the testing process. Specifically, employers will now be required to provide employees and applicants with an opportunity to contest a “non-negative test result” before the non-negative result is confirmed by a lab. A “non-negative test result,” which was formerly labeled as a “positive” test result, is defined under the amended SATL as “a test result that indicates the presence of a substance in the tested sample above the cutoff level of the test,” “but that has not been confirmed by a confirmation test.”

The amended SATL also imposes new requirements on the technical capabilities of testing providers, requiring “that the testing facility and confirmation testing lab used by the employer accepts and has the ability to test blood samples.”

Finally, the amendments clarify the role of MROs in the testing process. An MRO, defined as “a person who is a licensed physician and who is responsible for receiving and reviewing laboratory results generated by an employer’s substance use testing program and evaluating medical explanations for certain substance use test results,” is explicitly required to report a “confirmed positive test result” to employers.

The amended SATL also provides that the MRO “shall contact the employee or applicant and, if necessary, the employee’s or applicant’s physician to review each confirmed positive result or any test found to be adulterated, substituted or otherwise invalid to determine whether or not there is a legitimate medical explanation for the result.”

UPDATES TO THE EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS OF OKLAHOMA’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT

The OMMA currently prohibits employers from refusing to hire, disciplining, or terminating someone because the person holds a valid medical marijuana license or tests positive for marijuana. However, the law currently permits employers to take adverse action based on a positive drug test that is attributable to lawful medicinal marijuana use if the position is safety-sensitive or the employee was under the influence at work.

The amendments to the OMMA significantly expand an employer’s discretion to base an adverse action on a positive test that is attributable to medical marijuana, as long as such action aligns with a written drug and alcohol testing policy adopted and enforced in accordance with Oklahoma’s statewide drug testing law, the Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act.

The amendments to the OMMA also broaden the statutory protections for employers who conduct workplace drug testing by clarifying that an employer need not permit or accommodate the use , “possession, sale, transfer, or being under the influence” of medical marijuana at any “workplace or while performing job duties.” Likewise, the amendments bolster the ability of employers to enforce workplace drug and alcohol testing policies by confirming that nothing in the law shall “limit” (rather than “prevent”) “an employer’s ability to implement and enforce written drug and alcohol testing policies.”

The existing OMMA allows an employer to designate a position as “safety-sensitive” if the position “includes tasks or duties that the employer reasonably believes could affect the safety and health of the employee performing the task or others.” (emphasis added). The amendments, by contrast, remove the subjective “reasonably believes” language and further require employers that employ “safety-sensitive” workers to implement a zero-tolerance policy toward medical marijuana use. However, the amendments still retain the following broad, non-exhaustive list of job duties that qualify as “safety-sensitive”:

1. handling, packaging, processing, storage, disposal or transport of hazardous materials;
2. operation of a motor vehicle, other vehicle, equipment, machinery or power tools;
3. repairing, maintaining or monitoring the performance or operation of any equipment, machinery or manufacturing process, the malfunction or disruption of which could result in injury or property damage;
4. performing firefighting duties;
5. operation, maintenance or oversight of critical services and infrastructure including, but not limited to, electric, gas, and water utilities, power generation or distribution;
6. extraction, compression, processing, manufacturing, handling, packaging, storage, disposal, treatment or transport of potentially volatile, flammable, combustible materials, elements, chemicals or any other highly regulated component;
7. dispensing pharmaceuticals;
8. carrying a firearm; and
9. direct patient care or direct childcare.

The amendments do not define “zero-tolerance,” but they specify that “[t]his requirement shall apply regardless of any employer policy permitting impairment-based testing or alternative standards for positions not designated as safety-sensitive.”

Employers who hire and employ individuals in Oklahoma and Maine should review their drug and alcohol screening policies to ensure they comply with applicable legal requirements.