Nevada employment drug testing and marijuana

What the statute actually prohibits

NRS 613.132(1) states that it is unlawful for any employer in this State to fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a screening test and the results of the screening test indicate the presence of marijuana. Read that carefully, because the scope is narrower than the headline suggests. The prohibited act is failing or refusing to HIRE. The statute does not say an employer may not test, and it does not, on its face, govern discipline or termination of someone already employed. Nevada did not ban pre-employment marijuana testing. It banned acting on the result at the hiring stage.

Statute

NRS 613.132(1)

In force

1 January 2020

Prohibited act

Failing or refusing to hire

Not prohibited

Conducting the test itself

The four exceptions, quoted

NRS 613.132(2) states that subsection 1 does not apply if the prospective employee is applying for a position: as a firefighter, as defined in NRS 450B.071; as an emergency medical technician, as defined in NRS 450B.065; that requires an employee to operate a motor vehicle and for which federal or state law requires the employee to submit to screening tests; or that, in the determination of the employer, could adversely affect the safety of others. The fourth exception is the wide one. It turns on the employer's own determination about safety, which is a considerably softer test than the three specific carve-outs above it.

Exception (a)

Firefighter, per NRS 450B.071

Exception (b)

EMT, per NRS 450B.065

Exception (c)

Driving roles with a legally required test

Exception (d)

Roles the employer determines could affect the safety of others

The 30-day right to a second test

NRS 613.132(3) provides that if an employer requires an employee to submit to a screening test within the first 30 days of employment, the employee shall have the right to submit to an additional screening test, at his or her own expense, to rebut the results of the initial screening test. The statute then says the employer shall accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of such a screening test. Two limits are worth naming plainly. The second test is at the employee's own cost, and the employer's duty is to accept it and give it appropriate consideration, which is not the same as a duty to reach a particular conclusion.

Window

First 30 days of employment

Who pays

The employee

Employer duty

Accept and give appropriate consideration

Where the section does not reach at all

NRS 613.132(4) states the provisions of this section do not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent or otherwise in conflict with the provisions of an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, to the extent that they are inconsistent or otherwise in conflict with the provisions of federal law, or to a position of employment funded by a federal grant. That last one is broad in practice. Federal contractors, federally funded programs, and any role governed by federal drug-free workplace obligations sit outside this protection, and Las Vegas has a great many of them.

Carve-out

Conflicting employment contract or CBA

Carve-out

Conflicting federal law

Carve-out

Positions funded by a federal grant

What counts as a screening test

The statute defines the term rather than leaving it to practice. NRS 613.132(5) states that as used in this section, screening test means a test of a person's blood, urine, hair or saliva to detect the general presence of a controlled substance or any other drug. Hair testing is included, which matters, because hair panels have a much longer detection window than urine and are the format most likely to surface use that is weeks old and entirely unconnected to the workplace.

Covered samples

Blood, urine, hair, saliva

What it detects

General presence, not impairment

Why a dispensary is telling you this

Because it is the question customers actually ask at the counter, and because the honest answer includes the limits. Buying legally in Nevada does not immunize you at work. This section protects a hiring decision, not your job, and the exceptions are real. If your role touches driving under a federal testing mandate, public safety as your employer defines it, a collective bargaining agreement, or federal grant funding, the protection may simply not apply to you. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and an employment lawyer is the right call for a live dispute. What we can do is point you at the actual statute rather than a summary of it.