Eighth Circuit Affirms Employment Termination for Failed CBD Drug

CBD is supposed to be the “calm down” cousin of cannabisthe one that shows up to the family reunion with herbal tea,
not a fog machine. And yet, in one Eighth Circuit case, a bottle of hemp-based pain oil helped trigger a career plot twist:
a positive THC drug test and a termination that the court ultimately upheld.

The headline lesson is not “CBD is evil” (it’s not) or “drug tests are always fair” (they aren’t). It’s that employment law,
workplace drug testing, and the wildly inconsistent CBD marketplace can collide in a way that leaves employees holding a receipt
and employers holding… a policy manual.

The Case in Plain English: What Happened in Flannery v. Peco Foods

The dispute came out of Arkansas and involved a worker, Kelly Flannery, who was employed at a chicken-processing facility.
After a back injury, he used CBD oil for pain relief. A urine screening later showed THC in his systemthe compound most workplace
drug screens treat as “marijuana” (even if you personally insist you’ve never been on a first-name basis with a dispensary).

Flannery said the positive test was caused by the CBD oil. He also argued his THC level was below a threshold referenced in the company’s
employee manual, whichaccording to himshould have kept him safe from termination.

The employer terminated him anyway. Flannery sued. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The opinion was unpublished, but the reasoning is still a very useful road map for how these fights can play out in at-will states.

What Flannery Argued (The “But the Manual Said…” Approach)

Flannery brought multiple claims, including contract-based theories (breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing),
plus a fraud-style argument that the handbook language created a false sense of security about THC levels.

He also attempted to pivot toward public-policy wrongful discharge and workers’ compensation retaliation theories as the case progressed,
and he tried to amend to add disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation claims.

What Peco Foods Argued (The “At-Will Means At-Will” Approach)

The employer’s position leaned heavily on Arkansas’s at-will employment doctrine: absent a real “for-cause” employment contract,
the company can terminate the relationship for good cause, no cause, or even a reason that feels morally questionableso long as it isn’t illegal.

And critically, the employee manual didn’t promise job protection. It included language affirming at-will status rather than limiting discharge
to “for cause” situations.

What the Eighth Circuit Held (and Why It’s a Big Deal)

The Eighth Circuit’s decision reads like a checklist of reasons these cases can fail when the governing state law is strongly at-will and the handbook
is drafted with clear disclaimers.

1) Arkansas At-Will Employment Swallowed the Contract Claims

The court held that Arkansas’s employment-at-will doctrine defeats claims seeking damages or reinstatement based on breach of contract or
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealingwhen there isn’t an actual mutual employment contract changing the at-will relationship.
In other words: you can’t “good faith” your way into a contract that isn’t there.

2) The Public-Policy Exception Didn’t Rescue Him

Arkansas recognizes a narrow public-policy exceptionthink “you got fired for refusing to break the law,” not “you got fired because the situation feels unfair.”
Here, the court noted that Flannery tried to raise a retaliation theory (tied to time off for an on-the-job injury) for the first time at summary judgment.
The court wasn’t having it: unpleaded, unsupported, and untimely arguments generally don’t become viable just because the deadline is approaching.

3) The Employee Handbook Didn’t Create a “For-Cause” Promise

Another narrow path around at-will status is when a handbook expressly says an employee will be dismissed only for cause. But the manual here said the opposite:
the relationship could be ended at any time, with or without notice, for any reason or no reason. That kind of language is basically the legal equivalent of
a neon sign reading: “AT-WILL INSIDE.”

4) “Threshold” Language Wasn’t a Safe Harbor

Flannery’s argument about being under a listed THC threshold didn’t change the outcome. The court concluded the manual did not promise a protected
“safe-harbor THC level.” Even if he believed the threshold gave him cover, Arkansas at-will law and the handbook’s at-will disclaimer made any reliance
on “job security from a number on a page” unjustifiable.

5) The “Loose Ends” Were Tied OffHard

The court also addressed attempts to add claims late in the process. The proposed disability discrimination claim was considered futile because it
wasn’t exhausted (a common procedural roadblock in employment discrimination cases). The workers’ compensation retaliation theory ran into an Arkansas-specific
problem: that cause of action no longer exists under Arkansas law in the way employees sometimes expect.

Bottom line: no viable exception to at-will employment, no handbook promise of termination only for cause, and no legally sustainable theory that turned a
CBD-related positive THC test into wrongful termination under Arkansas law.

CBD, Hemp, and the Science of “Wait… How Is That THC?”

If you’re wondering how a person can use legal CBD and still test positive for THC, welcome to the modern hemp economywhere “may contain trace amounts”
is doing cardio.

Most Workplace Drug Tests Don’t Test for CBD

Standard employment drug screens typically look for THC metabolites, not CBD. So even if your CBD product is non-intoxicating and you never felt “high,”
the test isn’t measuring your vibeit’s measuring chemistry.

“Hemp-Derived” Doesn’t Mean “THC-Proof”

Hemp products are generally legal under federal and state frameworks when THC content stays under specific limits, but that doesn’t mean the product is
THC-free. Full-spectrum CBD can contain THC by design. Even products marketed as “THC-free” can be mislabeled or contaminated, especially in a marketplace
where quality control varies widely and regulatory oversight is limited.

How People Get Burned: Three Common Scenarios

• Full-spectrum CBD: Contains THC intentionally, sometimes enough to accumulate with regular use.
• Broad-spectrum or “THC-free” products: May still contain trace THC due to manufacturing realities or labeling errors.
• High dose + frequent use: Even low THC levels can add up over time, especially if you use CBD daily for pain, sleep, or anxiety.

Screening vs. Confirmation: Why “But It Was Barely There” Often Doesn’t Matter

Many employers use a two-step process: an initial immunoassay screen followed by a confirmatory test (often GC/MS or LC/MS) for positives.
But even when a worker believes their THC level is “below the limit,” the employment outcome depends on policy language, job category, and state lawnot just
the number.

And that brings us back to Flannery: the handbook didn’t create a guaranteed THC safe harbor, and Arkansas at-will doctrine didn’t require the employer to
treat “below a listed threshold” as immunity.

DOT-Regulated Jobs: The Rules Are Stricter Than Your Group Chat’s Spoiler Policy

Not every workplace follows Department of Transportation rules, but for DOT-regulated safety-sensitive roles, the guidance has long been blunt:
CBD use can lead to a positive marijuana test, and “I only used CBD” is not considered a legitimate medical explanation for a confirmed THC positive.

If you’re a commercial driver, pilot, rail worker, or in another DOT-covered position, the safest assumption is: a THC positive is a THC positive,
regardless of the source. That reality has fueled litigation not just against employers, but also against CBD companies over labeling claims.

Legal Landscape Beyond Arkansas: Same Hemp, Different Results

Flannery’s outcome is tightly connected to Arkansas law and the handbook language in that workplace. Other states can be very different:
some states protect off-duty lawful conduct (sometimes called “lawful products” laws), others provide protections related to medical marijuana,
and some restrict employers from taking adverse action for legal, off-duty cannabis use (with big carveouts for safety-sensitive jobs).

Here’s the tricky part: even in states with employee protections, “CBD caused my THC positive” is not automatically a winning argument.
Courts still look at the policy, the job duties, the testing protocol, and whether any statute creates a clear shield for hemp-derived products.

So while the Eighth Circuit decision is a strong reminder of at-will power in Arkansas, it’s also a warning label for everyone else:
don’t assume one circuit’s outcome ends the national conversation.

Employer Takeaways: How to Avoid Becoming the Next Headline

Employers don’t need to become cannabinoid chemists, but they do need policies that match reality. CBD is common, mislabeled products exist,
and employees often believe “legal” equals “protected.” Your job is to close that gap with clear rules and consistent practices.

Policy Tune-Up Checklist

• Define what’s prohibited: If you prohibit THC or “marijuana metabolites,” say so plainly.
• Address hemp and CBD directly: Consider a clear notice that CBD use may result in a positive THC test.
• Clarify consequences: Spell out whether any confirmed positive triggers discipline or termination, and whether exceptions exist.
• Confirmatory testing and MRO review: Use reputable labs and medical review processes, especially for safety-sensitive roles.
• Train supervisors: Consistency prevents both resentment and lawsuits.
• Know your state laws: Cannabis, hemp, disability accommodation rules, and lawful products statutes vary widely.

Don’t Let the Handbook Undercut You (or the Employee)

Flannery shows how handbook language can be decisive. If your handbook lists “thresholds” or cutoffs, be careful: employees may read that like a speed limit
(“I was only going 54!”) while the company intends it as an internal reference point.

If you don’t intend a safe harbor, don’t accidentally write one. If you do intend one, define it precisely and align it with your testing and disciplinary process.

Employee Takeaways: How Not to Get Ambushed by a “Legal” Product

If your employer drug tests and you use CBD, treat it like eating a muffin labeled “may contain nuts” when you’re allergic. Maybe it’s fine. Maybe it’s not.
The risk is realand sometimes the consequences are immediate.

Practical Steps (Not Legal Advice)

• Read your workplace policy: If it says “THC positive = violation,” CBD won’t magically rewrite that.
• Prefer third-party tested products: Look for reputable lab testing and consistent quality controls. It reduces risk, but doesn’t eliminate it.
• Avoid full-spectrum if you’re tested: If you must use CBD, understand the difference between full-spectrum, broad-spectrum, and isolate.
• Be cautious with dosing: Daily high-dose use increases the odds that trace THC accumulates.
• Safety-sensitive roles demand extra caution: For DOT-style roles, “CBD did it” is typically not a defense to a confirmed THC positive.

Wrapping It Up: The Uncomfortable Truth About CBD and Workplace Drug Testing

The Eighth Circuit’s decision affirming termination in Flannery’s case isn’t a referendum on whether CBD helps back pain.
It’s a reminder that employment outcomes are shaped by (1) state at-will rules, (2) what your handbook actually promises, and (3) the blunt force of a positive THC test
in a workplace that’s decided THC is a line in the sand.

If you’re an employer, clarity and consistency are your best defenses. If you’re an employee, assume CBD carries workplace risk unless your policy and state law clearly say otherwise.
And if you’re a CBD brand labeling products as “THC-free,” please understand that words on packaging can become Exhibit A.

Educational content only. Not legal advice.

Real-World Experiences: Lessons from the CBD-THC Surprise Party

To make this topic feel less like a casebook and more like real life, here are patterns that show up again and again when CBD meets workplace drug testing.
These are composite examples drawn from common HR and compliance scenariosbecause if you think Flannery was a one-off, HR departments nationwide would like a word.

Experience #1: The “I Bought It at a Gas Station, So It Must Be Fine” Moment

An employee with a sore shoulder grabs a “hemp tincture” at a convenience store. The label looks professional. The wellness claims are enthusiastic.
The problem? Cheap CBD products are where quality control sometimes goes to take a nap. Weeks later, a random test pops positive for THC.
The employee is genuinely shockedno recreational cannabis use, no intention to break rulesjust an over-the-counter purchase and a belief that “legal = safe.”
The employer’s policy, however, doesn’t care about intent. It cares about results.

What helps in these situations is having a policy that explains the risk in plain language. “CBD products may contain THC and may lead to a positive test.”
That one sentence can prevent a lot of confusion, anger, and “but my cousin’s friend said…”

Experience #2: The Handbook That Accidentally Sounds Like a Promise

Some employers list cutoffs or thresholds in manuals because they want transparencyor because a template has been copy-pasted since the iPod was still cool.
Employees read that and assume it works like a safe harbor: “As long as I’m under X, I’m fine.” Then HR applies a strict rule: “Any confirmed THC positive is a violation.”
Now everyone feels betrayed: employees feel tricked, HR feels misunderstood, and managers feel annoyed they’re in a meeting that could have been an email.

Flannery is a reminder that courts may treat those “threshold” references as non-bindingespecially when the handbook loudly declares at-will employment.
But avoiding the fight is better than winning it. If a threshold is not meant to create protection, rewrite that section so it can’t reasonably be read as a guarantee.

Experience #3: The Safety-Sensitive Job With Zero Room for “Oops”

In warehouses, manufacturing, transportation, utilities, and public safety, the tolerance for uncertainty is low. Employers in these environments
tend to keep drug policies strict, because accidents are expensive in money, injuries, and human lives.
In these roles, even employees who use CBD responsibly can get caught in a bad outcome: the product is mislabeled, THC accumulates, the test is positive,
and the policy is triggered.

The “experience lesson” here is that job category matters as much as product choice. If your job involves heavy machinery or public safety,
assume the workplace will prioritize risk reduction over individualized explanationseven sympathetic ones.

Experience #4: The Accommodation Conversation That Happens Too Late

Sometimes CBD use is tied to a medical conditionchronic pain, inflammation, insomnia, anxiety. When that’s the case, an employee might assume
they’re protected the way they would be with a prescription medication. But CBD is not automatically treated like a prescription drug, and a THC positive
can still trigger discipline if the policy is written that way.

The most practical move is to have the conversation early. Employees should ask about policies and testing risk before a test result creates a crisis.
Employers should route medical-related questions into a structured process (HR + medical review + legal review when needed), instead of winging it in the hallway.
Once a positive result lands, it’s much harder for anyone to slow down the machine.

Experience #5: The “Sue the CBD Company” Detour

When employees lose jobs over THC positives they believe came from mislabeled CBD, some look beyond the employer and toward the product maker.
That trend has grown alongside high-profile litigation over “THC-free” labeling. Even when an employee can’t win against an at-will employer,
they may still chase claims elsewhereespecially if independent testing suggests the product wasn’t what it claimed to be.

The takeaway: this is not just an employment story. It’s also a product labeling and consumer protection story. Everyone in the chainemployees,
employers, and CBD brandshas incentives to stop pretending the CBD market is perfectly predictable.

SEO Tags