Employers are allowed to maintain and enforce a drug-free workplace policy and does not require an employer to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace, but an employee cannot terminate or take adverse action against an employee based solely on the employee's recreational use of cannabis outside of the workplace. Exceptions apply to federal contractors and jobs considered safety-sensitive.

The employee's first proposed cause of action alleged a violation of NRS 613.333(1), which makes it unlawful for employers to "[d]ischarge . . . any employee . . . because the employee engage[d] in the lawful use in this state of any product outside the premises of the employer during the employee's nonworking hours" so long as "that use does not adversely affect the employee's ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees." The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the employee's argument that the phrase "lawful use in this state" meant lawful under state law, and found that the statute refers to the use of products lawful under both state and federal law. In reaching this conclusion, the Nevada Supreme Court examined the language of the statute, noting the meaning of the prepositional phrase "in this state" is different from "under state law," and that latter of which signals the Legislature's intent to focus on state law. The Nevada Supreme Court cited with approval a 2015 opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court, which similarly held that "lawful activity" did not include marijuana use that is illegal under federal law but legal under state law.

The court also rejected the employee's claim for tortious discharge in violation of public policy. Considering whether policies prohibiting marijuana use violate public policy, the court examined the interplay between the recreational marijuana statutes and employment law, and concluded that state law expressly permits employers to adopt and enforce workplace policies prohibiting or restricting recreational marijuana use. The court emphasized that the Legislature had authorized employers to prohibit or restrict recreational marijuana use by employees, and held that for the court to conclude otherwise would intrude on the prerogative of the Legislature.

As a result, employee and B2B data will be handled the same as consumer data. The expiration of these exemptions means that covered businesses will be required to extend their CCPA compliance programs to also include personal information for employees and B2B contacts. This includes the requirement to supply California employees, contractors, applicants and business contacts with a complete set of disclosures and rights available to California consumers per the CPRA, such as: access, correction, portability and deletion of personal information.

It is important to note that while some of these exemptions are expiring, the CPRA still provides for the same federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) exemption set forth under the CCPA, excluding personal information used by a consumer reporting agency to generate a consumer report under the FCRA. Sec. 1798.145(d)(1) of the CPRA states: "[t]his title shall not apply to activity involving the collection, maintenance, disclosure, sale, communication, or use of any personal information bearing on a consumer's [...] personal characteristics [...] by a consumer reporting agency, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1681 a of Title 15 of the United States Code, [...] who provides information for use in a consumer report as defined by subdivision (d) of Section 1681a of Title 15 of the United States Code.”