®
Skip to employment guidance
🏛 Landmark Ruling · May 2026 · Employment Appeal Tribunal
Truman v SPL Powerlines & Network Rail [2026] EAT 54
A medical cannabis patient banned from the rail industry after testing positive for prescribed THC has won a significant victory at the EAT. This ruling changes the legal landscape for every CBPM patient in safety-critical employment. Industry certification bodies are now confirmed as 'qualifications bodies' bound by full equality law.

Use the tabs below to navigate guidance for patients, employers, drug testing, safety-critical roles, and the landmark 2026 ruling.

Guidance for Patients: Your Employment Rights

What you must, can, and don't have to tell your employer — and how the Equality Act protects you.

You are not required to disclose your prescription
As a general rule, you are not legally required to disclose your use of prescribed medical cannabis to a potential or current employer. Medical information is confidential. Unless your role involves operating heavy machinery, safety-critical functions, or is otherwise subject to specific industry regulations, your prescription is your private medical business. Treat it as you would any other confidential medication.
If you choose to disclose — seek advice first
If you decide to disclose your prescription — voluntarily or because your role requires it — seek advice before doing so from a union representative, your prescribing clinic, or an employment lawyer. Once disclosed, you cannot undisclose. Think carefully about timing, the format of disclosure, and what you are consenting to share.
You are protected under the Equality Act 2010
Many conditions for which medical cannabis is prescribed — chronic pain, MS, PTSD, epilepsy, and others — qualify as disabilities under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. This means your employer must not discriminate against you because of your condition, and has a duty to consider reasonable adjustments. Adjustments may include flexible working hours, a private area for medication, or modified duties.
If you face a drug test — prepare in advance
If your employer conducts regular drug testing, you can inform them in advance that THC may be present in your system as a result of your prescribed medication. Provide supporting evidence — a clinical letter, a copy of your FP10, or confirmation from your clinic. An employer cannot compel you to provide a copy of your prescription — but providing supporting evidence proactively can prevent a positive test from being treated as misconduct.
Be responsible — your safety duties remain
A prescription does not exempt you from your duty to act safely at work. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Section 7), employees have a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions at work. If your medication affects your ability to work safely, discuss adjustments with your employer or prescribing clinician.
As a prescribed patient you should be treated no differently than any other patient with a medical condition. If you experience discrimination or feel pressured, contact ACAS, your trade union, or a specialist employment lawyer.
Guidance for Employers

Legal obligations, recommended steps, and how to support employees who hold a CBPM prescription — while maintaining workplace safety.

Obtain consent before requesting medical information
You must obtain explicit consent from an employee or job applicant before requesting any medical information, including information about prescription medication. Medical information is sensitive personal data under UK GDPR. Under the Equality Act 2010, you must not ask about health at the recruitment stage except in limited, specific circumstances — such as where the health information is necessary to establish the applicant can perform a function intrinsic to the role.
Involve occupational health — not HR or line managers
Where an employee discloses a medical cannabis prescription, the review of their medical history and any assessment of workplace impact must be carried out by a qualified occupational health professional — not HR staff or line managers. This protects both the employee's confidentiality and the employer's legal compliance. The occupational health professional's report informs management decisions; they should not be given the raw prescription or clinical letters directly.
Carry out a proper risk assessment
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, you have a duty to assess the risks associated with any prescription medicine use that may affect workplace health and safety. The assessment should be role-specific — a desk-based role carries very different risk considerations to a safety-critical one. Risk assessments must be reviewed regularly and updated when the employee's prescription changes.
Consider your duty to make reasonable adjustments
Where an employee's underlying condition qualifies as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (Section 20), you may have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. These can include adjusting work hours to accommodate dosing schedules, providing a private area for medication, modifying duties during a period of adjustment, or allowing remote working.
Update your drugs & alcohol policy
Existing drug and alcohol workplace policies typically do not account for lawfully prescribed cannabis. Review and update your policy to include a clear procedure for employees who disclose a CBPM prescription — covering how disclosures are handled, how occupational health is involved, what adjustments are available, and how drug testing results linked to prescribed medication are treated. A blanket "zero tolerance" policy applied to lawfully prescribed medication without individual assessment may expose you to an Equality Act claim.
Maintain confidentiality at all times
Medical information disclosed by an employee must be kept strictly confidential and only shared with those who genuinely need to know. This means occupational health, and on a need-to-know basis, the relevant HR or safety professional. It must never be shared with colleagues, clients, other managers, or security staff without explicit consent from the employee.
Employees who use medical cannabis may be classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Treating them less favourably because of their prescription — including dismissing them for a positive drug test result linked to prescribed THC — may constitute disability discrimination. Seek legal advice before taking any disciplinary action.
Workplace Drug Testing & Prescribed THC

What a positive result means for CBPM patients, how to handle pre-employment and in-role testing, and your rights throughout the process.

Expect to test positive — even if not recently dosed
THC and its metabolites are detectable in urine for up to several weeks after use, depending on frequency of use and metabolism. If you are prescribed a THC-containing CBPM, you will very likely test positive on a standard urine or oral fluid drug screen, regardless of whether you have recently consumed. This is expected and does not, by itself, indicate impairment or misconduct.
Disclose your prescription before the test — in writing
If you know a drug test is scheduled, disclose your CBPM prescription in advance and in writing. Keep a copy of everything you send. Provide a clinical letter or confirmation from your clinic confirming your prescription. Do not rely on verbal disclosure. The 2026 EAT ruling in Truman underlines how critical written pre-disclosure is — the MRO who did not contact Mr Truman before recording a fail was found to have acted in breach of their own policy.
The Medical Review Officer (MRO) process
Most formal workplace drug tests involve a Medical Review Officer — a qualified doctor who reviews laboratory results. Where a positive result may be explained by lawfully prescribed medication, the MRO's duty is to contact the donor before recording a fail and satisfy themselves that there is a legitimate medical explanation. If an MRO records a fail without contacting you, their process may be flawed. Challenge this in writing immediately, citing your pre-disclosed prescription.
A positive test is not automatic misconduct
Where you have disclosed a valid CBPM prescription and the positive result is consistent with that prescription, a positive drug test should not be treated as misconduct or grounds for dismissal without further investigation. Doing so without proper process may expose the employer to an Equality Act claim. If you face disciplinary action following a positive test linked to prescribed THC, seek immediate legal advice.
Employers: TUC guidance on drug testing
The TUC has published detailed guidance on Drug Testing in the Workplace which covers when testing is lawful, how results should be handled, and employees' rights. Employers should review this alongside their occupational health provider's advice before making decisions based on positive drug test results where prescribed medication is involved.
Key takeaway from Truman [2026] EAT 54: Always disclose your prescription in writing before any drug test, and keep copies. If an MRO records a fail without contacting you first, challenge the process — this may be a failure to follow their own policy and can ground an Equality Act claim.
Safety-Critical Roles: Special Considerations

Rail, aviation, nuclear, offshore, blue-light, and other safety-critical sectors — what CBPM patients and employers need to know, including the impact of the 2026 EAT ruling.

Safety-critical roles involve heightened scrutiny
In safety-critical roles — rail, aviation, nuclear, offshore oil and gas, emergency services, heavy plant operation, and others — employers have additional legal duties under sector-specific legislation and regulatory frameworks. The risk assessment for a CBPM patient in these roles is substantially more complex than in a general office environment. Disclosure of a CBPM prescription is strongly advisable before starting or continuing in a safety-critical role.
Industry certification bodies are now bound by equality law
Following Truman v SPL Powerlines & Network Rail [2026] EAT 54, it is confirmed that an organisation controlling access to an industry certification card or licence required to work in a safety-critical role is a 'qualifications body' under the Equality Act 2010. This means it must comply with the full obligations of the Act — including the duty to consider reasonable adjustments — not just the employer who directly employs you. This principle extends beyond rail to any sector where a certification, licence, or accreditation is a mandatory gateway to work.
Passing a drug test is still a competence standard
The 2026 EAT ruling confirmed that the requirement to pass a drugs and alcohol test is part of the standard of competence all safety-critical candidates must meet, and is not itself directly modifiable under equality law. However, the process by which the test is carried out — specifically how the MRO handles disclosed prescribed medication — is a separate matter that can give rise to a reasonable adjustments claim. The standard stands; the process must be fair.
What CBPM patients in safety-critical roles should do
Always take these steps proactively:
Disclose in writing, every time
At every pre-employment medical, every test, and every review — disclose your prescription in writing. Keep all copies.
Get a supporting letter from your clinic
Ask your prescribing clinic for a letter confirming your prescription and the expected presence of THC metabolites in testing.
Expect the MRO to contact you
If a drug test returns a positive, a properly conducted MRO review must contact you before recording a fail where prescribed medication has been disclosed.
Challenge a fail without MRO contact
If an MRO records a fail without contacting you, challenge this in writing immediately — citing your pre-disclosed prescription and requesting a review.
Seek specialist legal advice early
If you face a certification ban, job withdrawal, or disciplinary action, seek specialist employment legal advice as early as possible — time limits apply to tribunal claims.
You may have a claim against the certifying body
Following Truman, if your industry certification is refused or revoked based on a drug test result, your claim may lie against the certifying body — not just your employer.
Read the full PatientsCann UK analysis of the 2026 ruling and its implications on the Landmark Ruling page. Read the official judgment: Truman v SPL Powerlines [2026] EAT 54.
Truman v SPL Powerlines & Network Rail [2026] EAT 54

The first Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling to directly address the position of a medical cannabis patient in safety-critical employment. Decided 1 May 2026 by Mr Justice Soole.

Case Background
The Truman Case — What Happened
Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd & Others [2026] EAT 54 · 1 May 2026
Mr Truman, a rail professional, was offered a safety-critical planning role. He held a valid prescription for Adven EMT1 & EMT2 for chronic pain from genetic haemochromatosis — accepted as a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
He disclosed his prescription at his pre-employment medical. His urine tested positive for cannabis metabolites — entirely expected. The MRO at Express Medicals recorded a fail without ever contacting Mr Truman, triggering a mandatory five-year Sentinel ban and instant job withdrawal.
The Employment Tribunal found his THC levels were consistent with prescribed use and he could have worked safely with a risk assessment and standard oversight. It also found the result should have been recorded as a pass under Network Rail's own policy — yet still dismissed his claims. The EAT corrected this on appeal.
Read the Official EAT Judgment
Key Outcomes from [2026] EAT 54

The Sentinel card is a 'relevant qualification' — an authorisation any person must hold to carry out safety-critical work in the rail industry. The EAT confirmed that Network Rail, as operator of the Sentinel scheme, is therefore a qualifications body under the Equality Act 2010. This means the Equality Act applies in full to Network Rail in its role as gatekeeper of that certification — including the duty to consider reasonable adjustments — regardless of whether it also employs you directly.

This principle extends well beyond the rail industry. Any industry body that controls access to a certification, licence, or accreditation needed to work in a particular occupation may now be covered by the same principle. Network Rail's appeal against this finding was dismissed.

Mr Truman's reasonable adjustments claim against Network Rail has been sent back to the Employment Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The EAT found that the original tribunal had not properly explained its reasoning on whether Mr Truman was placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person in the same position. That question must now be reconsidered properly, with correct legal analysis. This is an important procedural win — the door is open.

Network Rail cannot escape responsibility for the outcome of testing carried out under its policies simply because the testing was physically done by Express Medicals. Network Rail sets the policy and controls the Sentinel scheme. It remains responsible for how that policy is applied. This has wide implications for large organisations that outsource their occupational health or drug testing functions — you cannot outsource your Equality Act obligations.

Mr Truman's appeal on this point was dismissed. The EAT confirmed that the requirement to pass the drugs and alcohol test is part of the competence standard all safety-critical candidates must meet — it cannot itself be waived or modified as a reasonable adjustment under equality law. However, this is distinct from the process by which the test is administered. How the MRO handles disclosed prescribed medication is subject to the reasonable adjustments duty. The standard remains; the process must comply with equality law.

Express Medicals' appeal against a finding about its potential liability under the specific provision covering those who assist discrimination was allowed. The EAT found this particular legal route did not apply to them on the facts. This does not mean their conduct was acceptable. The Employment Tribunal's findings about the MRO failing to follow proper process — and that the result should have been a pass — were not overturned. The route for direct liability against the MRO under this provision simply did not succeed on these facts.

Read PatientsCann UK's full analysis — including what this means for industries beyond rail: Landmark Ruling for Safety-Critical Role. Written by Mohammad Wasway, Founder & MD, PatientsCann UK® · 12 May 2026.
Get Support with the PatientsCann UK App
Free to use — legal support tools, Know Your Journey guide, clinic directory, and more. All in one place.

The information on this page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The use of medical cannabis may affect your employment status. PatientsCann UK recommends discussing your use with your employer and understanding your workplace contract and policies regarding prescription drug use. PatientsCann UK will not be liable for any employment-related issues arising from the use of medical cannabis. Always seek independent legal advice specific to your situation.