Source register

Use: Every article is mapped to authoritative source families for checking current law and agency guidance. Official materials control over these educational summaries. This is not legal advice.

Official source families

Article records

Corrections

Report a broken link, outdated rule, or factual issue to rncollins@antithesis.law with the article URL and supporting official source. Substantive corrections are logged below and are not removed. A library that teaches people to check the primary source should be willing to show where it failed to.

• Corrected August 29, 2026 · substantive · legal error

  Oregon does not protect employees from discipline for off-duty psilocybin use

  What we published. Seven articles stated or assumed that ORS 659A.315 prohibits Oregon employers from disciplining or terminating an employee solely for lawfully using psilocybin through the state’s licensed program during nonworking hours. LCL-081 led with that proposition as its answer and cited the section nine times. Three further claims rested on the same footing: that the supposed protection mirrored an earlier Oregon cannabis employment protection under the same statute; that an employer could not use a positive drug test result alone as evidence of impairment at work; and that BOLI publishes guidance on an Oregon psilocybin employment protection.

  What the law actually says. ORS 659A.315 is titled “Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited; exceptions.” It has two subsections, both about lawful tobacco products, and it was last amended in 2005. It does not mention psilocybin, marijuana, or controlled substances of any kind. ORS chapter 475A, which creates and governs Oregon’s licensed psilocybin program, contains no employment provision at all; its only employment-related section, ORS 475A.489, is a whistleblower protection for employees of psilocybin licensees who report suspected regulatory violations. Oregon is an at-will employment state. In most cases an Oregon employer may lawfully terminate an employee over psilocybin use, and the disability-accommodation route is closed by ORS 659A.124(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a) where the employer acts on current illegal drug use — as the Oregon Supreme Court held in Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 348 Or 159 (2010), which found no duty to accommodate an employee’s state-authorized medical marijuana use. That decision is also the opposite of the “earlier cannabis employment protection” the articles described. No Oregon statute restricts the evidentiary use of a positive drug test, and BOLI publishes no psilocybin employment guidance, because there is no such statute for it to administer.

  What we changed. LCL-081 was rewritten from the ground up to lead with the correct answer. The other six articles had every reference to the phantom protection removed and the surrounding analysis rebuilt on the law that does apply. A correction notice appears at the head of each article whose stated answer was affected. Articles corrected: LCL-065, LCL-076, LCL-078, LCL-079, LCL-080, LCL-081, LCL-093.

  Sources checked. ORS 659A.315 · ORS chapter 475A · ORS 475A.489 · ORS 659A.124 · ORS 659A.112 · Emerald Steel, 348 Or 159 (2010) · 42 U.S.C. § 12114 · 21 U.S.C. § 812

• Corrected August 29, 2026 · substantive · legal error

  Colorado SB21-087 did not create an off-duty lawful activities protection

  What we published. LCL-093 told service center operators that Colorado SB21-087 prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee’s lawful activities outside the workplace, and that this would cover accessing Colorado’s natural medicine program as a client.

  What the law actually says. Colorado SB21-087 (2021) is the Agricultural Workers’ Rights Act; it concerns agricultural labor, collective bargaining, minimum wage, and heat protections, and has nothing to do with off-duty conduct generally. Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities statute is C.R.S. § 24-34-402.5, and it does not reach federally prohibited substances: in Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44, 350 P.3d 849, the Colorado Supreme Court held that an activity prohibited under federal law is not a “lawful” activity under that section, and that a state-licensed medical marijuana user was therefore unprotected from discharge.

  What we changed. The passage was rewritten to cite the correct statute and the controlling case, and to state plainly that state authorization does not make natural medicine access a protected lawful activity in Colorado.

  Sources checked. Colorado SB21-087 · Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44

• Corrected August 29, 2026 · source register · broken link

  EEOC source register URL returned 404

  What we published. The source register listed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at eeoc.gov/laws/guidance, mapped to twelve articles. That path returns HTTP 404.

  What we changed. The register entry now points to eeoc.gov/laws-guidance, which resolves. No article text cited the broken path directly, so the fix is confined to the register.