Red Light, Green Light: New Puerto Rico Law Spells Out That Medical Cannabis Protections Stop at the Wheel

Puerto Rico law puts guardrails around employment decisions affecting bona fide medical cannabis patients. A new law pumps the brakes when those patients are in the driver’s seat. 

Under Article 24 of Act No. 42 of July 9, 2017, as amended, also known as the Act to Manage the Study, Development and Research of Cannabis for Innovation, Applicable Standards and Limits (“Medicinal Cannabis Act”), registered and authorized medical cannabis patients who identify themselves as such to an employer are a protected category for purposes of Puerto Rico’s employment protection laws.¹ Employers may not discriminate against them in recruitment, hiring, appointment, termination, or any other penalizing condition of employment.

These safeguards, however, are not absolute. They yield if the employer establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

1. The use of medical cannabis represents a real threat of harm or danger to people or property;
2. The use of medical cannabis by the registered and authorized patient interferes with their performance and essential job functions;
3. The use of medical cannabis by the registered and authorized patient exposes the employer to the loss of any license, permit, or certification related to any federal law, regulation, program, or fund; or
4. The registered and authorized patient ingests or possesses medical cannabis in the workplace or during working hours without written authorization from the employer.

The Medicinal Cannabis Act also directs that these protections be interpreted liberally in the patient’s favor.

On October 9, 2026, Puerto Rico Governor Jenniffer González-Colón signed into law Act 204-2026 (“Act 204”), which, although framed as a fifth exception, clarifies that Article 24’s protections do not apply to a registered and authorized patient who:

5. Seeks to perform, or performs, safety-sensitive transportation functions, such as driving trucks or heavy vehicles, school buses, or taxis, or providing transportation services through digital platforms or mobile applications.

Three traits of the amendment bear mention. First, the statute says “such as” but does not define “safety-sensitive transportation functions.” Employers must thus rely, for now, on the examples provided and other applicable laws and regulations to piece together a definition. Second, the trigger is the function itself. Unlike the first four exceptions, this one does not require the employer to show a real threat, interference with job performance, regulatory exposure, or on-the-job use, although the employer still bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the role qualifies. Third, Act 204-2026 exempts these roles from the liberal-interpretation mandate. Close calls about whether a particular duty qualifies will no longer go to the patient by default. 

Employees whose positions do not involve safety-sensitive transportation functions remain protected under Article 24, subject to its four pre-existing exceptions. Act 204-2026 took effect immediately upon approval and directs the Medicinal Cannabis Regulatory Board to conform its regulations accordingly.

Although the legislative intent focused on the transportation sector, the statutory exception turns on the job function, not the employer’s industry. Any employer whose workforce includes employees who transport goods or people should identify potentially covered positions, document why each qualifies as safety-sensitive, and, in consultation with counsel, review its drug-free workplace, drug-testing, and medical cannabis policies, as well as relevant job descriptions and offer letters, to ensure that any zero-tolerance rules are appropriately tailored to the new exception.