The requirement to maintain a safe workplace often clashes with state and local laws that protect the rights of individuals who use marijuana while off-duty, creating unique challenges for manufacturing employers.
Manufacturing employers still may prohibit the use of marijuana at work, as well as marijuana impairment at work. But marijuana drug testing is complicated and controversial because of the legal protections for off-duty marijuana use in some states and cities, the legal protections for medical marijuana users in many jurisdictions, and because there are no drug tests that can detect current marijuana impairment or very recent use of marijuana.
Federal Law
Manufacturers no longer should defend “zero tolerance” marijuana drug testing policies. Previously, employers could argue that marijuana still is illegal under federal law or that the employer is a federal contractor that must comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act. The federal government has not enforced the law that makes marijuana illegal for some time, and it has permitted states to create and enforce their own laws with respect to medical and recreational marijuana.
Some courts have recognized that the federal government is allowing state governments to regulate marijuana and, therefore, courts are enforcing state marijuana laws despite marijuana’s illegal status at the federal level. Courts also have rejected arguments that federal contractors “must follow federal law” because the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing and does not permit employers to regulate off-duty conduct.
State Laws
At present, 39 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws, while 22 states and the District of Columbia have recreational marijuana laws (Maryland’s law will take effect in July and others will be enacted in the coming months). Many of these laws provide employment protections to applicants and employees. The variations in the laws make it difficult for multi-state manufacturers to have consistent marijuana policies in all locations.
What It Means for Employers
Due to the recent trend in some states to protect off-duty use of marijuana, and even prohibiting pre-employment marijuana testing, many manufacturers are discontinuing pre-employment marijuana testing, especially in states where marijuana is legal. Applicants often are surprised to learn that a positive marijuana drug test will lead to withdrawal of the job offer. If the positive marijuana drug test result is due to medical use (and there are no general off-duty protections in the state), manufacturers must be familiar with the applicable law.
Some states prohibit discrimination against medical marijuana users, while other states may allow an employer to take an adverse employment action if the job is considered “safety-sensitive,” i.e., a job with dangerous duties, as defined by applicable state law.
In certain other states where discrimination is prohibited and the manufacturing employer has safety concerns, the employer should engage in the “individualized assessment” and “direct threat analysis” required under state laws that mirror the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. This process includes discussions with the applicant and the applicant’s physician to assess the safety risk.
Reasonable suspicion marijuana testing is permissible in most states because impairment at work never is permitted. In states where off-duty marijuana use is protected, manufacturers should rely on the impaired behaviors when taking disciplinary action, rather than rely solely on the positive marijuana drug test result (assuming that testing for marijuana is permitted). This is because marijuana stays in the human body for a long time, so the positive drug test result is not conclusive proof that the employee was impaired at work. Manufacturers also should make sure that supervisors and managers are trained to observe and document reasonable suspicion determinations properly, as these documented observations will be key evidence in a potential lawsuit.
To make matters even more complicated, CBD (cannabidiol), “low THC,” and hemp products are being marketed and sold everywhere since Congress legalized hemp (having no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) in 2018. Separate from marijuana laws, the use of “low THC” or CBD products is allowed in a number of states, usually for medical purposes, which means that manufacturing employers should tread carefully when an applicant or employee claims to use CBD products for medical reasons. While many CBD and hemp products are marketed as having little or no THC, these statements may not be true, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not yet regulate them. These products may cause positive drug test results for marijuana. There has been an increase in lawsuits where former employees claim that their positive marijuana drug test results allegedly were caused by CBD products.
While it appears that marijuana eventually will be legalized at the federal level, manufacturers must ensure they are complying with all applicable laws. Manufacturing employers should:
Review drug and alcohol policies for compliance with applicable drug testing and marijuana laws;
Remove marijuana from the drug testing panel in locations where testing for marijuana is prohibited and locations where off-duty use is protected and consider removing it in other locations where it may be an obstacle in the hiring process;
Train Human Resources employees and other managers to engage in the interactive process with employees who use medical marijuana (or medical CBD products); and
Train supervisors to make appropriate and timely “reasonable suspicion” determinations.
While that is good news for patients seeking treatment for issues like chronic pain, medical cannabis laws can cause a major headache for employers. The federal law known as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, meaning that under federal law, it is not currently authorized for medical treatment anywhere in the United States and is not considered safe for use even under medical supervision. So, what happens when an employee is injured at work, is eligible for workers’ compensation, and is prescribed medical cannabis to treat their work-related injury in a state that authorizes medical cannabis?
Employers are faced with a tricky dilemma: They can reimburse the employee’s medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense and risk violating the federal prohibition against aiding and abetting the possession of cannabis. Or, they can refuse to reimburse the otherwise reasonable medical expense and risk violating the state’s workers’ compensation law.
Usually, where it is impossible for an employer to comply with both state and federal law, federal law wins—a legal concept called conflict preemption. Unfortunately for employers, however, clarity on this issue will have to wait—the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined two requests to review state supreme court cases on this issue and definitively decide whether the CSA preempts state workers’ compensation laws that require reimbursement of medical cannabis. In the absence of federal guidance, national employers with workers in different states must follow the decisions of the handful of state courts that have taken up the question. The state courts who have decided the issue have come to inconsistent conclusions—thus, whether an employer should reimburse medical cannabis will vary depending on the state where the employee is injured.
For example, in Maine and Minnesota, both states’ highest courts have concluded that employers are not required to pay for their injured employees’ medical cannabis. These courts reasoned that employers would face liability under the CSA for aiding and abetting the purchase of a controlled substance. The employer, if reimbursing employees for using medical cannabis, would knowingly subsidize the employee’s purchase of marijuana in direct violation of federal law. However, in such a case, the employer would also violate state law for refusing to reimburse the employee’s reasonable medical expenses. Deeming it impossible for the employer to comply with both laws, these states’ courts concluded that the federal prohibition on cannabis preempts the state workers’ compensation laws.
States such as New Jersey have gone the other way, requiring employers to reimburse employee’s medical cannabis. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that there was no conflict between the prohibitions of the CSA and the demands of the New Jersey workers’ compensation law. Thus, the federal law did not preempt New Jersey’s state law, and employers were required to comply by reimbursing medical cannabis as a reasonable reimbursement.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts followed Maine and Minnesota’s approach, but did so based on its own medical marijuana statute, not the CSA. The Massachusetts law explicitly exempts health insurance providers or any government agency or authority from the reimbursement requirement because doing so violates federal law.
Given this patchwork of state decisions, employers should be cautious in determining whether to approve or deny medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense under state workers’ compensation laws. While the answer is relatively clear (for now) in the states discussed above, there are still over 30 states with medical cannabis programs that have not addressed this issue. It is important to note that many state medical cannabis laws include provisions like Massachusetts that exempt employers from reimbursing employees for cannabis—a clear indicator that these laws were designed with federal prohibitions in mind. But these provisions are not necessarily determinative—New Jersey’s medical cannabis law has a similar provision, yet New Jersey employers are still required to reimburse for medical cannabis.
The bottom line is that federal CSA violations can be hefty, including a mandatory $1,000 fine, possible incarceration of up to one year, and possibly more if “aggravating factors” are found, such as prior convictions. Employers should therefore pay careful attention to their respective state medical cannabis laws, workers’ compensation laws, as well as the CSA and consult with counsel to determine the best approach in their particular jurisdiction. It is likely that more of these cases will be brought in the future, so be sure to check back for further developments in this evolving area of law.
Starting May 10, 2020, New York City employers may not require prospective employees to submit to testing for the presence of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols (or THC, the main psychoactive component of marijuana) in an individual’s system as a condition of employment. Currently, neither New York state nor New York City have any general ban on drug testing during employment.
The long-awaited ban, which was passed in April 2019 and is included as an amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, outlines several exceptions based on the employer’s industry and the prospective position. These include, for example, police or peace officers, positions requiring a commercial driver’s license or those governed by Department of Transportation regulations, positions subject to testing under federal or state regulations or grant conditions, and positions requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients or vulnerable persons. The new law also exempts positions that will be subject to a collective bargaining agreement that already addresses pre-employment drug testing for those prospective employees. The amendment also includes an exception for positions with the potential to impact the health or safety of employees or the public as identified by the New York City Commission.
In March 2020, the New York City Human Rights Commission issued proposed rules, which include proposed categories for safety sensitive roles, including positions that require regularly working on an active construction site, or power or gas utility lines, positions regularly operating heavy machinery, positions in which an employee operates a motor vehicle on an approximately daily basis, or positions in which impairment would pose an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to the employee or others. The public comment period for the proposed rules has passed, but the expected finalizations of these rules has been delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The amendment bans only pre-employment testing for marijuana; it does not address testing for any other substance or mid-employment marijuana testing. However, all New York state employers should be mindful of the potential application of the New York medical marijuana law and applicable employment-related protections, including its relation to disability protections and accommodations under antidiscrimination laws.
Failure to adhere to the new ban on pre-employment screening can result in civil penalties up to $250,000 as well as consequential and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Employers in New York City should review their existing drug-testing policies to confirm that they are in compliance with the new law, as well as contact their testing vendors to ensure any pre-employment tests comply with the new law.
As shelter in place orders were rolled out in California, many businesses transitioned their workforce to remote work for the first time. Employers had to determine how to track hours worked or what qualified as a business expense. However, other unique questions arise with a remote workforce, such as how to handle employees using marijuana while working from home.
Over a decade ago, when California passed the Compassionate Use Act, an employee questioned an employer’s right to prohibit marijuana use. The California Supreme Court in Ross v. Ragingwire held the employer need not accommodate medicinal marijuana use, irrespective of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Ross reasoned that since the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) does not require employers to accommodate illegal drug use, the employer could lawfully deny employment to individuals using medical marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law.
More recently, in 2016 California legalized marijuana for recreational use, which further complicated employee marijuana use at work. Despite the change in marijuana’s legal status, the law reiterated that an employer could have a policy against the use of drugs while working or at the workplace.
While the law permits employers to prohibit drug use at work, now a large portion of workers are working remotely, Unfortunately, the lines for employees may be blurred since they are in their own homes (and many people seem to need a little extra help getting through this pandemic).
Employers should remind employees that during working hours, the expectation is that employees will comply with all policies of the company, including drug and alcohol policies. If the company does not have a drug and alcohol policy, it may want to include information prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol while performing work in a remote work agreement or work from home policy.
If a manager or supervisor suspects that an employee is using marijuana or other drugs while performing work for the company, the supervisor should be instructed to reiterate the company’s policies.
The more difficult aspect of a remote workplace is handling an employee who is clearly under the influence while working, such as appearing intoxicated at a video conference. In California, an employer can only request an employee undergo a drug test under limited circumstances, including if there is reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence. While there may be sufficient evidence to request a drug test, due to concerns surrounding COVID-19 including overwhelmed medical providers, an employer will need to more carefully consider whether to insist an employee submit to a drug test at this time. Similarly, as some employers are actually hiring new employees during COVID-19, they too may wish to consider whether to postpone typical post-offer, pre-hire drug tests until the current health crisis has calmed down. Of course, drug tests are still necessary for employees in safety-sensitive positions, but they typically are not working remotely.
If an employee voluntarily requests leave for drug rehabilitation, assuming the employer’s workforce is over 25 employees, the employer should grant the leave pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1025, unless the leave would result in an undue hardship. Other leaves may also apply, so employers should consult with their Jackson Lewis attorney. However, of note, all the new COVID-19 California Paid Sick Leaves are limited to either actual COVID-19 diagnosis or exposure, caring for family, or childcare issues only. As such there will be no need to grant paid sick leave to an employee who claims pandemic stress-induced drug use.
Employers should also be cautious that they are not overstepping into trying to control an employee’s lawful off-duty activities. This may include, for instance, seeing social media posts from employees using marijuana at home. Unless it’s clear from the post that the marijuana usage occurred during working hours, employers should refrain from taking any action.
On Feb. 10, 2020, as West Virginia companies were finalizing applications for medical marijuana permits, President Donald J. Trump made statements that caused several companies to reconsider filing. President Trump said he is “empowered to ignore the congressionally approved medical cannabis rider [to the Omnibus Spending Bill], stating that the administration ‘will treat this provision consistent with the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.’”[1]
Both existing medical marijuana companies and those interested in applying for permits want to know whether this assertion of power would be justified and if it would affect their ability to do business going forward. That is: Has the executive branch been empowered to ignore the congressional spending power given to Congress in the Constitution? If so, from where does that power derive? Further, when two Congressional Acts conflict, what is the executive “empowered” to do, if anything?
Under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, “The executive power shall be vested in a president . . . [who] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”[2] By assigning the executive power to see that laws be “faithfully executed” and assigning Congress with “all legislative powers” granted by the Constitution, the founders limited the executive to only enforce the laws promulgated by Congress.[3] Thus, the executive branch is given limited power, which “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”[4] Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Congress has given the executive expressed power to enforce the laws identified under the CSA. This power, however, is limited to Congressional authority. Thus, the power can be suppressed or eradicated by Congress at will. When this occurs, the executive has little to no ability to enforce the law.[5]
In 1970, Congress enacted the CSA to regulate specific drugs deemed at risk of abuse and dependence.[6] Since then, cannabis has been declared by Congress to be a Schedule I drug, meaning there is no acceptable medical use, establishing its outright ban. To support the banning of cannabis, Congress asserted, “Controlled substances [like cannabis] have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.” Until 2014, Congress supported the full enforcement of the CSA through Omnibus Spending Bills.
However, in 2014, in public law No. 113-235, Section 38, in the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, Congress expressed its will to limit the DOJ’s (executive’s) power to enforce the CSA by restricting the DOJ’s use of congressionally approved funds therein. Specifically, the amendment prevented funds made available under the spending bill “to be used to prevent [32 States and the District of Columbia] from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” In so doing, Congress effectively removed the DOJ’s power to enforce the CSA against state legal entities.
In addition to the question of enforcement authority by the executive, there are also questions regarding whether Congress was endowed with the power to regulate the cultivation, processing, or sale of drugs generally. In our limited federal government model, in order for Congress to create a law, it must have been given the power to act by the Constitution.[7] There are two essential constitutional provisions typically relied upon to justify the vast majority of our laws, which are both found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.[8] The first is the power to tax and spend for the “general welfare” of the people. The other is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The founders feared the power to tax and spend for the general welfare had the potential to be broadly construed, and they discussed at length how the General Welfare Clause should be interpreted narrowly.[9]
In other words, absent an enumerated power listed in Article I, Section 8 or an amendment to the Constitution, Congress has no constitutional power to act. Some contemporary examples highlight the means by which Congress has been able to regulate such vices when there is no enumerated constitutional power to do so. For example, when Congress outlawed the sale of alcohol during the prohibition era, it could not do so based on the language of the Constitution. Rather, Congress had to amend the Constitution with the ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919. Congress had no such constitutional authority to ban alcohol; it had to create a new power to enact prohibition. Likewise, when the federal government wanted to enact a federal minimum drinking age of 21, it knew it could not create a law mandating the restriction, because no such constitutional power exists. Rather, Congress used the General Welfare Clause by conditioning receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s adoption of the 21-year age limit.[10] Congress did not create a national drinking age; it just provided a carrot to trigger state compliance.[11]
Despite this legislative history, the Supreme Court found Congress has the authority to enact the CSA pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[12] Specifically, in Raich, California’s Compassionate Use Act authorized limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes, and respondents Raich and Monson, who were California residents, both used doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions.[13] After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal CSA to the extent it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.[14] Respondents argued enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions.[15] The district court denied the respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding they had “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority” as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes.[16] On review, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the district court’s ruling.[17] It held Congress was acting within its Commerce Clause power in enacting the CSA.[18] Whether that holding would be revisited is a question many are currently asking.
[2] The Constitution enumerates few powers to the executive. These include: power to veto bills passed by Congress—art. I, § 7, cls. 2 & 3; power to write checks pursuant appropriations made by law—art. I, § 9; military power as commander in chief—art. II, § 2, cl. 1; pardon power—Id.; power to make treaties, with advice and consent of the Senate—art. II, §2, cl. 2; power to nominate ambassadors, federal judges, and other public officers, with advice and consent of the senate—Id.; power to make recess appointments—art. II, § 2, cl. 3; and power to convene and adjourn both houses of Congress—art. II, § 3. The Constitution also imposes duties on the president, which the president has power to implement. These include: duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution—art. II, § 1; duty to advise Congress on the state of the union—art. II, § 3; duty to receive ambassadors and other public ministers—Id.; duty to faithfully execute the law passed by Congress—Id.; and duty to commission officers of the United States—id.
[3] See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587-588 (1952).
[4] Id. at 585.
[5] See id., at 602 (Frankfurter, J. concurring) (stating that “[i]t cannot be contended that the president would have had power” when “Congress explicitly negated such authority in formal legislation.” Thus, “Congress has expressed its will to withhold power from the president”).
[6] Joanna R. Lampe, Cong. Research Serv., R45948, The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 116th Congress Summary (2019).
[7] Andrew Nolan, et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45323, Federalism-Based Limitations on Congressional Power: An Overview 4 (2018).
[8] The specific provisions stated within U.S. Const. art. I. § 8 are: “The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” and “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes[.]”
[9] Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, largely known as the leading advocate for a strong federal government, provided that “[t]his specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”[9]The Federalist 83 (Alexander Hamilton) (emphasis added); later Hamilton would take a more expansive view on the clause. See Hamilton, Alexander, (5 December 1791) “Report on Manufactures” The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961–79).James Madison, another key Federalist, said if Congress could do anything it wanted to promote the general welfare, then it “would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”[9] Letter from James Madison to James Robertson, Jr., (20 April 1831), National Archives, Founders Online,https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2332 (last updated September 29, 2019).
[9] See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211-12 (1987).
[10] See id.
[11] Something to consider today is Congress’ recent act to raise the federal age of tobacco use to 21. Rather than attempting to connect the minimum age to a constitutional authority like the prior examples, it appears Congress outright mandated it to the states. This demonstrates that, over time, Congress feels it has gotten stronger as constitutional protections have weakened.
Employers cannot afford to ignore the direct impact of the 2019 amendments to the law permitting legal medicinal marijuana use in New Jersey. Among the most important areas of concern, employers must be prepared to (1) create policies that will comply with federal, state and local laws, as well as maintain a safe workplace and (2) respond to a potential increase in positive drug tests and the resultant challenges to any employer action taken in response to a positive test result (e.g., denial of employment for an applicant or termination of the employment of a current employee).
New Jersey’s former Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) contained language stating:
[N]othing in [CUMMA] shall be construed to require… an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14.
On July 2, 2019, Governor Murphy signed into law the Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-2, et seq. (Honig Act), which replaced CUMMA. The revised employment law provisions of the Honig Act create job protections. The above-cited language from CUMMA changed, and the Honig Act provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful to take any adverse employment action against an employee who is a registered qualifying patient based solely on the employee’s status as a registrant with the commission [i.e., the Cannabis Regulatory Commission established pursuant to the law].
The Honig Act defines “adverse employment action” as “refusing to hire or employ an individual, barring or discharging an individual from employment, requiring an individual to retire from employment, or discriminating against an individual in compensation or in any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” N.J.S.A. 24:6I-3. State regulations were adopted to support CUMMA (N.J.A.C. 8:64-1 et seq.) but no new regulations were promulgated in furtherance of the Honig Act.
The patient/employee-friendly provision moves New Jersey into the group of states with medical marijuana laws that expressly provide employment law protections for medical marijuana users (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia).
The Honig Act establishes a procedure employers must follow when an employee tests positive for marijuana. If an employee (or prospective employee) tests positive for cannabis, the employer is required to (1) provide written notice of the right to provide a valid medical explanation for the test result and (2) offer an opportunity to present a valid medical explanation for the result. N.J.S.A. 14-6I-9.
The employee or applicant has three (3) working days after receipt of the employer’s written notice to explain the result or request a retest of the original sample (at the employee’s expense). The Act does not define “working days.” A valid explanation for the positive test result may include an authorization for medical cannabis issued by a health care practitioner or proof of registration with the medical marijuana commission.
If an employee demonstrates she is a valid medical marijuana user, employers will not be permitted to use that alone as a basis to take adverse employment action, unless the employer can demonstrate that one of the federal exemptions applies.
The Honig Act permits employers to take adverse action if an employee possesses or uses an intoxicating substance during work hours, or if such use would require an employer to commit any act that would cause the employer to be in violation of federal law.
“Cannabis” has the meaning given to “marijuana” in section 2 of the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-2. The NJ Controlled Dangerous Substance Act includes cannabis as a Schedule I(e) hallucinogenic that has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision. Accordingly, we assume “intoxicating substances” includes medical marijuana as it’s used in the Honig Act.
Nothing in the Honig Act requires an employer to commit any act that would cause the employer to be in violation of federal law, lose a licensing-related benefit pursuant to federal law, or lose a federal contract or federal funding. For example, most federal contractors are required to comply with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA), which precludes the possession or use of controlled substances at work sites. 41 U.S.C. §8101(a)(5)(B).
Future lawsuits surrounding marijuana use are likely to be focused on the types of reasonable accommodations employers should make and what jobs are too safety-sensitive to permit an accommodation for medical marijuana use. Due to the Honig Act’s infancy, it is not clear if New Jersey courts will follow precedent from other states imposing a burden on the employer to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine if there are medical alternatives that are equally effective, and the use of which would not violate company policy.
In some other states, when there are no equally effective alternatives, the employer bears the burden of proving that the use of a medication would cause an undue hardship to the employer’s business to justify the employer’s refusal to make an exception to an anti-drug policy. In addition, the use of medical marijuana may be for an underlying condition meeting the definition of a disability, a condition that affords job protections, including the need to engage in the interactive process seeking to reach a reasonable accommodation.
For example, in Massachusetts, an employer may be able to show an undue hardship exists where accommodating the medical marijuana use would impair the employee’s performance of her work; pose an unacceptably significant safety risk to the public, the employee or fellow employees; or violate an employer’s contractual or statutory obligation and thereby jeopardize its ability to perform its business. We do not yet know how New Jersey will interpret what constitutes an undue hardship in accommodating an employee’s medical marijuana use.
On March 27, 2019, New Jersey’s Appellate Division, the second-highest court, issued an unpublished opinion in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. et al., A-3072-17T3 (March 27, 2019). Mr. Wild appealed dismissal of his lawsuit against his former employer alleging various Law Against Discrimination (LAD) violations and common-law defamation. His lawsuit claimed his employer discriminated against him for his use of medical marijuana, which he used as part of his cancer treatment. Both parties pointed the Appellate Division to the fact that “nothing” in CUMMA requires an employer to accommodate a medical marijuana user. Based on that the defendants argued, the plaintiff’s claims under the LAD could not go forward.
The Wild court analyzed whether the plaintiff pleaded a case under the LAD; it did not weigh and analyze proofs. The court concluded the plaintiff set forth allegations necessary to his cause of action and the matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appellate Division held CUMMA’s declaration should not be construed to “require” an accommodation, but does not mean such a requirement might not be imposed by other legislation. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14. Further, the court concluded that CUMMA’s refusal to require an employment accommodation for a user does not mean CUMMA immunizes employers from obligations already imposed elsewhere. Essentially, CUMMA does not limit the LAD by permitting an employer’s termination of a cancer patient’s employment by discrimination without compassion.
The Appellate Division rejected the argument CUMMA and the LAD are in conflict because CUMMA states that “nothing in this act shall be construed to require … an employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.” N.J.S.A. 24:6I-14. CUMMA intended to cause no impact on existing employment rights; CUMMA neither created new employment rights nor destroyed existing employment rights. CUMMA imposes no burden on defendants, and negates no rights or claims available to a plaintiff under the LAD.
The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral argument on February 4, 2020. The State Supreme Court is considering the impact of the Honig Act’s amendments providing employment protections to medical marijuana users. Because the Honig Act was passed after the events leading to Wild’s termination, it is unclear how it will affect his case on appeal. The Court may address whether the Honig Act, as amended, grants employees a private right of action, and, if so, whether the amendments are retroactive. We anticipate the Supreme Court’s decision within the next three to six months.
While the Honig Act grants employee protections, it is likely that employees still will seek to bring suits under the LAD as a continued source of protection because, unlike the Honig Act, the LAD allows the possibility for punitive damages and contains a fee-shifting provision.
For now, employers should, at a minimum, make sure they comply with the notice and communication provisions in the Honig Act when an employee/applicant tests positive.
The cannabis industry is rapidly expanding in the United States, with multiple jurisdictions and corporations seeking to accommodate the evolving cannabis market. Carlton Fields attorneys Kevin McCoy and Jennifer Tschetter discuss the emergence of cannabis as a billion-dollar, mainstream industry; explore its impact on corporate clients; and analyze the ever-evolving legal landscape in this space.
Transcript:
Kevin: It’s an exciting day here at Carlton Fields. My name is Kevin McCoy. I am a trial lawyer here in the Tampa office of Carlton Fields with a background in commercial litigation, and today I’m going to be speaking with Jennifer Tschetter out of our Tallahassee office, who is the co-chair of our Cannabis taskforce, which is a very exciting area of the law and one that we are happy to be working in and learning about and helping clients with. So without further ado, welcome, Jennifer.
Jennifer: Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin: Thanks for making the time today. First of all, why don’t you give us a little background about you?
Jennifer: Sure. I’ve been practicing law about 18 years and during that time I spent 10 of them in public service, primarily at the Department of Health here in Florida.
Kevin: Wonderful. In the Department of Health, what were some of the areas that you touched upon in particular with respect to health issues, or have you been involved in the medical marijuana and the marijuana push here in Florida?
Jennifer: Yes, in fact, I was general counsel at the department when medical marijuana first came to this state. So, since the inception of the regulatory structure, I’ve either been intimately involved as a regulator, or since my move to private practice just a couple of years ago became more involved on the private side.
Kevin: Wow, so you’ve been in the front lines?
Jennifer: Yes.
Kevin: You’ve been in the front lines as the government has wrangled with this, I won’t say with the forbidden fruit anymore, because I don’t know that we’re in that land, but you’ve been fighting the fight for a while on both sides of the isle, I suppose?
Jennifer: Yes.
Kevin: So, you know, I use that term, the forbidden fruit, and it’s amazing to me, literally, that we are sitting here at a firm like Carlton Fields and we’re talking about Cannabis law, which, when I started here, I couldn’t have contemplated that that would be an area that we are growing and we are developing experience in and counseling clients on. But, it’s here. And, why don’t you talk to us a little bit about how here it is? I mean, in reality that this is no longer, you know, we don’t think of this anymore like this is two guys doing a drug deal in a parking lot, this is billion dollar industry. Is that fair to say?
Jennifer: Fair to say. So some of the things that I think are most interesting is to watch the evolution of this industry. If you’ve seen, I’m sure everybody has seen those maps, you know, that have varying colors of green based on, you know, are you a recreational state or a medical marijuana state, a low THC state and if you think about that 20 years ago there was one green state on that map and that was California and now you look at the states and there are only 3 that don’t have any color anymore. At least, in some form, 47 states have said you can use this on some level. Might be low THC. Might be full spectrum. Could be recreational. But, those types of statistics are interesting to me. The other ones that come to mind are 1 in 4 Americans right now live somewhere where purchasing recreational cannabis is legal. The farm bill’s delisting of hemp has opened another huge industry and they’re all derivatives of the cannabis plant which used to be forbidden.
Kevin: Let’s talk for a minute for those who are maybe new to this space, new to this industry, about that real distinction. Because that’s one that maybe I didn’t appreciate until recently. When we talk about cannabis, it’s easy to confuse some of the aspects of cannabis as it, as between marijuana or between CBD, which is all the rage of late. Can you just briefly give us an overview of the differences that happen between cannabis, between marijuana, between CBD? How does all that break down for somebody who’s really not deep in this space?
Jennifer: I’ll try. So, our definition in the United States of what constitutes the difference between hemp and marijuana, and they are both species of the same plant, cannabis. So they’re both cannabis, but what distinguishes them is their THC level and THC is the thing that most people think about as creating the euphoria typically associated with marijuana. In hemp, the THC level is .3% or less. If the cannabis plant, as it’s growing, has a THC level higher than .3%, it’s marijuana. So, that’s the distinction is the THC level in each.
Kevin: So, we’ve talked a little bit about some of the aspects that are happening and you talk about the delisting of hemp from the Controlled Substances Act. What has that or what have you observed the impact of that having as impacting some of the clients that we deal with in terms of, you know, these are corporate clients. These are big. They’re pharmaceutical. They are manufacturers. They are real businesses who are now looking at this. Can you just talk about what you’ve seen in industry as, for example, you mentioned CBD, as that has been delisted, or hemp I should say, has been delisted from a controlled substance.
Jennifer: So, CBD, I think there’s a place to start. So, hemp has opened the opportunity, not only for industrial uses for hemp, but it has created another potentially billion dollar industry in this country with the passage of the farm bill in 2018. So, those billion dollar industries don’t come around very often and one aspect of it is the CBD industry. Because hemp is low in THC, one of the other cannabinoids that’s very popular is CBD, which has been documented to relieve stress, anxiety, improve depression and can also alleviate some joint aches when applied topically. So, CBD is in high demand around the country and when it is extracted from the hemp plant, it can be infused in a variety of products: shampoos, lotions, gummy bears, drops. So, that created an enormous industry, but for every business in this country, the potential to at least contemplate whether a CBD additive would be helpful for their product and understanding how to navigate this new regulatory structure that’s kind of emerging, if you do chose to that, has been challenging.
Kevin: You mentioned the word challenging. What are some of the challenges that you are seeing as clients are coming to you for guidance as they’re entering, let’s just call it, the broad umbrella of cannabis without getting into whether it’s marijuana or CBD based on the .3% that you just described. But, what are some of the top, if you had to give us the top five challenges that people are coming to you, businesses, I mean we’re not talking little players here, we’re talking about real corporate clients, they need help, what are the areas that are the hottest right now that you are seeing?
Jennifer: So, compliance is one and the unfortunate part about that, and the challenge that goes with that, is the shifting sand that is the regulatory structure. When hemp was, when cannabis, I’m sorry, was put on the controlled substance act in the 70’s, it stopped all research, it stopped all production of both hemp and marijuana in this country. Because of that, everyone is just now putting brand new regulatory structures in place and research is ongoing and that continued compliance, I think that that is the number one challenge for a business trying to get in this market right now is that you can get a snapshot from a law firm as to whether your business is in compliance today, but the law in North Carolina can change tomorrow. The law in California can change next week and it’s that ongoing uneasiness and being willing to move in that space aggressively despite the potential for the bottom dropping out at any given moment.
Kevin: It sounds like on the compliance piece then, what folks are facing in this industry is right now, it’s you know, technology as I’ve seen it on, in any number of areas, whether it’s a plant, whether it’s a new gadget, a widget, whatever it may be, technology always moves faster than the law and the law is slow to catch up and that’s not necessarily a bad thing because we rely on law. But right now, what we’re dealing with is a regulatory patchwork, if you will, where step over the line from state X to state Y, you could be facing very different types of regulations, whether it’s labeling, whether it’s requirements and sourcing. Can you just talk about some of the things you’re seeing in that regard? I mean, for example, you know I think to the bill that we just passed here in Florida, the hemp bill, and some of the things that, for example, you would see here in terms of a Florida based hemp business that stick out to you that maybe could differ from other states around the country.
Jennifer: So, I think every state is going to have, and this will be a challenging piece of it, different rules on how you can bring that product into the state. And so, the USDA has issued some guidance that said everybody get ready, the farm bill said you can move this from state to state. It’s now a legal agricultural commodity. That’s great, except it does have an impact on agriculture and so, every agriculture department around the country right now is trying to figure out how to protect its farmers. And so the rules on how you bring product into this state, I think, will be one of the first challenges. That’s a patchwork where if you don’t know the law, you might not know that you need to be escorted into the state by our department of agriculture after you have an inspection, and when you get here, your truck needs to be a closed truck…
Kevin: Mm-hmm.
Jennifer: …in order to move about the state of Florida. Those are the proposed regulations.
Kevin: Sure.
Jennifer: We’ll see where they end up. Those will vary by state and part of it is that, I know here in Florida, it’s a perfect example. We’re so sensitive to invasive species. When you look at the cannabis plant, what the plant researchers have told you is that it’s a more invasive species, hemp, cannabis that would include hemp. It’s a more invasive species on their scale from 1 to 25, then Kudzu.
Kevin: Mm-hmm.
Jennifer: So, that should give us all pause as to whether we should be too quick to move so quickly in a space and eager, because it can have lasting implications.
Kevin: You know, it’s funny that you bring up this patchwork and states putting in place these kind of regulations to, maybe, protect their own, if you will. I think the last time I had ever thought about the commerce clause of the constitution was about a week ago when you and I were comparing notes on, I’m not so sure if this particular regulation doesn’t cut too close on protecting, you know, interfering with that. So, what are some of the legal issues that businesses are looking at as cannabis the plant impacts them? I mean, I would have to imagine, you’re dealing now, not only as a business dealing in cannabis, but, I mean, it’s gotta impact employment policies. It’s gotta be impacting, I mean, it’s actually, not to overstate it, but it’s almost like, what is this not going to impact, you know, in terms of policies, in terms of industry? Talk to us about some of the things that businesses have to be looking out for in terms of regulatory patchwork and you can interpret that or answer that in whatever way you want, because it’s a very broad question. But, based on what you’re seeing and what people are coming to you with, what are some of those top items outside of, maybe, compliance or regulatory?
Jennifer: There isn’t an item.
Kevin: Yeah.
Jennifer: This industry will touch almost all practice groups in law firms. When you think about it, because it’s both medicine and something that people want to use for recreational pleasure, it’s different than other things. That’ll make its impact on schools and Girl Scout troops. I mean, they’re gonna have to deal with issues related to cannabis and figure out what they can and can’t do for people that either have a prescription to take this medication, or CBD products limited, they’re not high in THC, so those are, there’s not an industry that I can think of that won’t be impacted by this.
Kevin: I tell you what, I have to agree and I am not anywhere near as versed in this space as you are. Admittedly, I’m a newcomer to understanding this as an industry. But, in the short time that I’ve been working with clients in this space, I mean, I have seen this touch land use. I have seen it touch rewriting employee handbooks which we’ve had to do, you’ve got tax issues. You’ve got money transmitter issues. You’ve got, how, where’s… great your business is doing well, but where are you going to put all that money? You know, US banks are slowly coming around. I think, part of that is because they’re pushing Congress to give them the clearance that they want to be able to touch some of this money.
You mentioned the USDA. You’ve got ongoing issues with the FDA and what are they going to do? And I think they, you know, they have been studying this and rightly so, which is, which is their task to do but, industry is crying out for them to make a move, to take a stand or at least a position and I think that will help industry in terms of knowing the rules of the road because right now, tell me if you disagree but, it’s almost like we are in the wild West in some regard because people are trying to predict what the regulatory framework will be and they’re not going to stop business while they’re waiting on government. So, they’re trying to do the best they can. Is that consistent with what you’re seeing?
Jennifer: Yes, and also a lot of innovation. So, the sky is the limit. You know, I was telling someone the other day, think about how different this industry is than some other highly regulated industries. And I think part of that is the federal prohibition on it, which makes it confusing to talk about. There’s not that federal overlay that you see in some other industries which is why, for example, we maybe don’t see nicotine gummy bears and we don’t see other products that are innovative. I think that they can be helpful, enjoyable. Those are all good things and they’re all possible in this cannabis space.
Kevin: What other areas, you know, we talk, we think about this in terms of somebody who’s directly in this space in terms of you’re cultivating, in terms of you’re manufacturing or you’re distributing whatever that product may be, whether it’s biomass, whatever you’re doing, maybe textile, but, it seems like they’re, this is going to touch a lot of ancillary businesses too. So, for example, you know, you look at the Florida farm bill, you have to have an approved third party independent lab testing your batches of product. So, talk about some of the ancillary industries that you’ve been working with in that regard, and just, setting aside not actually being in directly in the space but maybe a secondary player and areas where you’ve been giving counsel and people have been coming to you for your knowledge.
Jennifer: Sure. The ancillary businesses that we work with most often are those that are directly related. I mean, they’re driven by the cannabis space. And you’re right; the independent testing labs are one of them. And so we work with them and, you know, try to set high standards for those labs whether it be through accreditation and then work with the regulators to put appropriate regulations in place. And I think that’s where when clients can be introduced as an asset, a subject matter expert. Who knows better how to test and what’s possible to test for in a parts per million or parts per billion than the lab folks? And that’s why it’s been a pleasure to represent them and learn a lot about that space.
Other ancillary businesses are the seed to sale tracker. So what some people might not know is that virtually every state that has put in place a medical marijuana program puts in a seed to sale tracking system, and that literally tags plants from the time that they are growing in a cultivation room and you track them with bar codes all the way through the production process so that when you’re all done you know exactly what product was made with that plant. And those type of tracking mechanisms are essential to prevent against diversion in states that don’t want to have a legal recreational adult use market yet. So, that’s another ancillary business that is all unto itself but, the technology and information technology that goes into that is highly complicated and sophisticated. I think you will see that on the hemp side as well. In that most, one of the greatest concerns in the hemp industry is, where are we growing this? And part of that is to understand just how far the reach will be. Can you cross pollinate an orange field 10 miles away or is it 5 miles away? We’re gonna just all learn together. I think it’s an orange grove, candidly. But, those are the things that I think will be interesting and those ancillary businesses are creatively looking for solutions.
There are also drone manufacturers that will be essential in the GIS mapping of hemp cultivation plots all over this country that will help us understand the impact on other crops and also be a tool for law enforcement because I think what can be confusing for people – we were talking about it before in interstate shipments – is that if you were to cut up, you know, grind up a batch of hemp and a batch of marijuana or you drive by a field of hemp the terpenes are the same and it will smell a lot like that smell that we all associate with adult use or recreational marijuana. And so, when you see a load of it coming over state lines, that’s confusing to law enforcement, and rightfully so. Rightfully so. I think that there’s a lot of entrepreneurs looking for innovative solutions to help regulators to help the industry do it better, do it faster. And this is an industry that seems receptive to all those things.
Kevin: You know, you touch on a really interesting point. I went to one of the recent rule-making sessions here in Tampa that the Department of Agriculture put on. And there was a lot of discussion over the disposal requirement and the rule. And it actually surprisingly got a lot of pushback from the audience and a lot of questions about why would you impose these costs. And I actually thought the response from the folks from the Department of Agriculture sitting on the panels was encouraging because their response was, “Listen, there’s two paths here. If you get a crop of hemp that, we come out and we test it and it’s above .3% because of whatever factor happened, inadvertently it was too hot, who knows, you got bad seed. We can make that a law enforcement issue and now you have an entire acre or acreage of plant that is technically now illegal because of something that was out of your control. Or, what we have done is come up with this disposal plan that we’re still trying to flesh out but we can have a plan where we go, ‘This is no good. We’re going to give you the opportunity to dispose of it in the appropriate way.’ And then we don’t need to call law enforcement.” But, your comments trigger to me, what are you seeing in terms of the give and take of what’s happening or the receptiveness of regulators whether it’s federal or state to take input and be receptive to the idea that we’re going to work together on this. It’s not us versus you. It’s imperative to have relationships there and to be part of that discussion and sitting at that table having those conversations.
Jennifer: Both the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are very partner oriented. They’re looking for solutions. I think you find that the law enforcement community as well, and everyone is trying their best to disseminate information. So State Attorney Dave Aronberg this week released some guidance that things that smell like marijuana anymore aren’t necessary probable cause for a search of a vehicle.
Kevin: Sure, yeah.
Jennifer: It might not be, because there is smokeable hemp on the streets in Florida. So, you can’t just smell a car and think you can search it. That was distributed widely. Generous of the law enforcement community to not limit it to one particular jurisdiction but instead to share it more broadly. They’re also looking for solutions that work for everyone. Everybody wants the bad actors out of the space, but everybody knows that most of the actors that are coming here are looking for an opportunity and mean to do it the right way. And I think the state of Florida has had a position for a long time – and I have not seen it change – that the goal is always compliance. It’s not punishment, but instead compliance is our goal.
So, that didn’t surprise me. I, too, was very pleased to hear that Ag had taken the position that even though it’s .5% THC, it’s still hemp. You’re just going to destroy it in accordance with your waste management plan.
Kevin: Right.
Jennifer: And that is a very generous interpretation and one that is very farmer-friendly.
Kevin: Well, you touch on an interesting topic. And I don’t think us sitting here talking about this topic in Florida we could get through this first podcast without talking about the situation of the grandmother over at Disney. But, to me what was encouraging out of that entire issue was somebody made a law enforcement decision on the street, but after, maybe there was some talking and some education back in the State Attorney’s office, about the direction. We were on the verge at that time of the hemp bill passing, which would, that same instance right now, assuming that bottle was oil that was .3% or less, that would have been a no probable cause. That would have been a no arrest. And, so it was encouraging, while probably maybe the lady who was arrested could disagree about the experience there, it was encouraging to see that law enforcement with, given a little more time, was already thinking about this. And I think that’s maybe part of the education component that’s gonna come across the board. It’s not just industry, but it’s law enforcement, it’s government, and it’s, let’s, let’s not consume resources here unnecessarily, unless, as you say, we’re focusing on some of the bad actors who may be ruining it for the rest of us, so to speak.
So, the next thing I want to talk about today, Jennifer, is where do you think the opportunity is? We’ve talked about some of the regulatory headwinds and we’ve talked about how businesses might be facing some of those, which can be bad or good depending on what side you’re on. As lawyers, we love, that’s where we make our money, navigating that for folks. But, talk about the opportunities that are there, the opportunities for those who want to get in the space and are new to the space or contemplating getting in the space, whether they’re investors, they’re business, they’re start-ups. What are you seeing based upon the practice that you’ve built around cannabis?
Jennifer: The farm bill definitely changed the field in that when clients call now and they want to get into this space, they want to do something because these are two new burgeoning billion dollar industries that don’t come along very often. How do I get in is usually the question. And what I’ve been telling everyone since passage of the farm bill, and in Florida specifically the passage of our state hemp bill, is hemp is the way to go. It’s an unlimited number of licenses as opposed to marijuana which is a very limited number of licenses. We started with five total in the entire state of Florida. Five licenses would be given out for 20 million people. That’s slowly growing, but still there’s only 22 companies that get to participate in that space. Contrast that with hemp where you can pick just a part of it and as many people as want to participate can. So, I think if there’s opportunities right now, it’s in the hemp space.
And there are corollaries between the two industries that if ever, if marijuana ever turns out to be a space where there are more opportunities – they either remove the vertical integration requirement from the license so that you could have one person licensed to grow and one person licensed to sell and another person licensed to process. That may happen in this state and that would create more opportunities. But until it does, there’s only a few licenses out there and you have to do everything in that chain.
The nice part about these two industries is that those overlaps both require processing to get finished product that patients want to use. Both require retail sales and how to market that product in compliance with FDA regulations on, you know, making sure that you don’t claim they have significant health effects. So there are a lot of overlaps that I think for someone that wants to get involved in the industry right now, what I’m counseling them is that start in the hemp space. That’s the place to be. There are no opportunities in Florida right now in the medical marijuana space unless you want to buy one of those licenses for a significant amount of money. And, that’s the only way to get in that space right now and probably the only way to be there for the foreseeable future. With the state of litigation on the medical marijuana side of the industry, I don’t anticipate that we’ll see any new licensees. Certainly not in 2019 and it will be a long way into 2020 before we get to that place. So, for folks that want to get in right now and do something, they should look at hemp as that opportunity.
On the investment side, that can vary. I think that depends upon the quality of the company.
And, I think, one of the things we haven’t touched on today but I think will root itself out eventually in these industries are things like pretenders and frauds and burgeoning industries can attract those kinds of people. So, I think that’s where due diligence is really important on the investment side: understanding the regulatory structures, understanding whether they are scaled up. They can tell you they want to put 100 dispensaries in a state, but if they have a 100,000 square foot cultivation facility, that’s probably not even possible. You could never stock the shelves. So, those are the things that I think due diligence will help investors, and that’s why they’re consulting people like you and me to talk through those issues. But, for investment, I think both spaces are good. For people that want to work, make money, and be a part of something new, I’d take a good look at hemp.
Kevin: That’s a fantastic insight. You know, and from what I’ve seen and just some of the market research and then in some of the other things that you can just find on the Internet, you know, you go back to where we started in the medical marijuana versus the hemp side, and then in terms of CBD, that whole dichotomy that’s happening there in terms of people who hear the word “cannabis” have always associated it with marijuana. And it’s, you know, I may or may not be interested in that, but the whole concept of the CBD space now is coming out where essentially, at least from the marketing standpoint, you can have the benefits of marijuana without the THC and without the high. And the market that I’m seeing in terms of opportunity – I think this is what you’re talking about, too, with hemp – is that this market’s gonna explode. I mean, because more people who would never even contemplate for whatever reason that they would ever touch a cannabis product are now saying, “What’s so bad about this one?” You know, “I can still function, I’m not gonna be a pothead, if you will. I’m just gonna take the benefits from this plant that have been forbidden maybe for no good reason, we’re coming to find out, for such a long time.” So, I’m glad to hear you talk about that as an opportunity because even beyond, you know, the CBD and the ingestible space or the topicals, you get into textiles, you get into manufacturing of ropes, and everything else that goes with it. And so…
Jennifer: Drywall, concrete, I mean, all those hemp-based products. I heard Ag say the other day there are 25,000 known hemp-based products ready to go as soon as we have enough hemp in this country. And when you talk about drywall that is mold and fire resistant and I think about that in beach houses, that’d be perfect, right? So, I’m really excited about the opportunities that this space presents. And hemp, I think, is the future.
Kevin: I tell you what. This entire industry, to me, is just so exciting because it’s new, it’s fresh, it’s one of those opportunities that in the law, to have something that is just so untamed come along, you don’t see that very often. And I don’t know about you, I had a great time today. I hope you would join me again because next time I would really like to get into some of the Florida-specific stuff we’re seeing, including you’ve talked about some of the appellate issues maybe that the Florida Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on some stuff. So, will you join me again? Maybe we can try a next session?
Jennifer: Absolutely. And if it’s after August 8th, we should know more answers. So.
Kevin: Fantastic. And thank you, again. You are definitely very, very deep in this industry and I’ve learned a lot today, so thank you so much for joining us.
Jennifer: It was a pleasure. Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin: I also want to thank our audience for joining us today. We had a great time. We hope you did, too. We hope you will check out more about our practice at carltonfields.com. There you can find the landing page for the cannabis taskforce that Jennifer is the co-chair of and you can learn more about what we are doing in this space as it impacts businesses that are running throughout this industry.
After four years of policy debate, rulemaking, testing, and approval, medical marijuana became available for purchase at nine Louisiana pharmacies yesterday.
Passed in 2015, the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana Act allows specially licensed Louisiana physicians to recommend medicinal marijuana for therapeutic use to Louisiana residents suffering from debilitating medical conditions. The Louisiana Legislature, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, and the Department of Agriculture have worked together over the past four years to clearly define the parameters in which the alternative medical treatment can be manufactured, prescribed, sold, and used.
The problem, however, is that Louisiana’s medical marijuana law fails to address the employment relationship, and thus creates a potential cause of action against employers who discriminate against medical marijuana users. Put simply, we don’t know for sure whether Louisiana law requires employers to accommodate medical marijuana use by employees with qualified disabilities.
While current marijuana users are excluded from federal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, some state courts have determined that employers must accommodate medical marijuana users who occupy non-safety sensitive positions. This is a very fact-intensive issue that requires consideration of both the industry and state in which the employer operates, as well as the specific duties of the employee. Eventually, the issue will be addressed by a Louisiana court. Until then, Louisiana employers can take steps to avoid potential liability by contacting counsel, evaluating their current policies, and clearly defining their safety-sensitive positions.
On March 27, 2018, New Jersey approved a significant expansion of its medical marijuana program. Reforms include eligibility for patients with anxiety, chronic pain, migraines and Tourette’s syndrome. The move is expected to expand the number of eligible patients far beyond the current level of 18,874. Registration fees will be lowered for patients and the public registry for participating physicians abolished. Currently only 536 out of 28,000 physicians are registered in the program. The loosening of these restrictions aims to address the low rate of participation by doctors and patients relative to other comparably populated states. Medical marijuana has been legal in New Jersey since 2010.
“We are changing the restrictive culture of our medical marijuana program to make it more patient-friendly,” Governor Phil Murphy said. “We are adding five new categories of medical conditions, reducing patient and caregiver fees, and recommending changes in law so patients will be able to obtain the amount of product that they need. Some of these changes will take time, but we are committed to getting it done for all New Jersey residents who can be helped by access to medical marijuana.”
New Jersey has five dispensaries, also known as Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs). A sixth ATC is preparing to open its doors in the near future. As a result of the reforms, these ATCs will be able to open satellite locations for the first time. In addition, the 10 percent limit on THC will be removed. “Patients should be treated as patients, not criminals. We will be guided by science,” Murphy said.
Further Legalization
Governor Murphy, a Democrat, indicated he wants to sign legislation to legalize adult use of cannabis by the end of 2018. If the legislation succeeds, analysts predict legalization will generate $1 billion of revenue in its first year.
New Jersey has two competing legalization bills under consideration in the legislature that vary regarding the proposed rate of taxation, legality of home cultivation, the number of shops permitted to operate and the level of government regulation. Political momentum for cannabis reform has been growing in the wake of successful programs in Colorado, Washington and other states. Some New Jersey legislators support legalization as a method of generating revenue required for funding other budgetary obligations.
Nationwide, 29 states have medical cannabis programs. If the pending legislation succeeds, New Jersey will be the ninth state to approve recreational use. This rapidly changing landscape of cannabis law requires a diverse array of legal services. Important areas include business formation & governance, commercial transactions, regulatory compliance, labor & employment, professional liability, product liability, intellectual property, insurance coverage and tax assistance. Because cannabis laws vary from state to state, national firms will undoubtedly lead this rapidly expanding area of specialization.
Connecticut employees using medical marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions as allowed under Connecticut law for “qualified users” are protected under state law from being fired or refused employment based solely on their marijuana use. Employers who violate those protections risk being sued for discrimination, according to a recent federal district court decision.
Background
In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operation Company (3:16-cv-01938; D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2017), the federal district court ruled that “qualified users” are protected from criminal prosecution and are not subject to penalty, sanction or being denied any right or privilege under federal laws, such as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), because the federal laws do not preempt Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA).
PUMA prohibits employers from refusing to hire, fire, penalize, or threaten applicants or employees solely on the basis of being “qualified users” of medical marijuana. PUMA exempts patients, their caregivers and prescribing doctors from state penalties against those who use or distribute marijuana, and it explicitly prohibits discrimination by employers, schools and landlords.
In Noffsinger, Plaintiff was employed as a recreational therapist at Touchpoints, a long term care and rehabilitation provider, and she was recruited for a position as a director of recreational therapy at Bride Brook, a nursing facility. After a phone interview, she was offered the position at Bride Brook and accepted the offer, and she was told to give notice to Touchpoints, which she did to begin working at Bride Brook within a week. Plaintiff scheduled a meeting to complete paperwork and routine pre-employment drug screening for Bride Brook, and at the meeting, she disclosed her being qualified to use marijuana for PTSD under PUMA. The job offer was later rescinded because she tested positive for cannabis; in the meantime, Plaintiff’s position at Touchpoints was filled, so she could not remain employed there.
Litigation
Plaintiff sued for violation of PUMA’s anti-discrimination provisions, common law wrongful rescission of a job offer in violation of public policy and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) pre-answer motion to dismiss based on preemption under CSA, ADA, and FDCA. The federal court denied the motion and ruled that PUMA did not conflict with the CSA, ADA or FDCA, because those federal laws are not intended to preempt or supersede state employment discrimination laws. The court concluded that CSA does not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user, and it does not regulate employment practices; the ADA does not regulate non-workplace activity or illegal use of drugs outside the workplace or drug use that does not affect job performance; and the FDCA does not regulate employment and does not apply to PUMA’s prohibitions.
The court’s decision is notable in that it is the first federal decision to determine that the CSA does not preempt a state medical marijuana law’s anti-discrimination provision, and reaches a different result than the District of New Mexico, which concluded that requiring accommodation of medical marijuana use conflicts with the CSA because it would mandate the very conduct the CSA proscribes. The Noffsinger decision supplements a growing number of state court decisions that have upheld employment protections for medical marijuana users contained in otherstate statutes. These decisions stand in stark contrast to prior state court decisions California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Washington that held that decriminalization laws – i.e., statutes that do not contain express employment protections – do not confer a legal right to smoke marijuana and do not protect medical marijuana users from adverse employment actions based on positive drug tests.
Key Takeaways
Employers may continue to prohibit use of marijuana at the workplace; and qualified users who come to work under the influence, impaired and unable to perform essential job functions are subject to adverse employment decisions. Employers in Connecticut, however, may risk being sued for discrimination for enforcing a drug testing policy against lawful medical marijuana users. In those cases, employers may have to accommodate off-duty marijuana use, and may take disciplinary action only if the employee is impaired by marijuana at work or while on duty.
It remains unclear how employers can determine whether an employee is under the influence of marijuana at work. Unlike with alcohol, current drug tests do not indicate whether and to what extent an employee is impaired by marijuana. Reliance on observations from employees may be problematic, as witnesses may have differing views as to the level of impairment, and, in any event, observation alone does not indicate the source of impairment. Employers following this “impairment standard” are advised to obtain as many data points as possible before making an adverse employment decision.
All employers – and particularly federal contractors required to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act and those who employ a zero-tolerance policy – should review their drug-testing policy to ensure that it: (a) sets clear expectations of employees; (b) provides justifications for the need for drug-testing; and (c) expressly allows for adverse action (including termination or refusal to hire) as a consequence of a positive drug test.
Additionally, employers enforcing zero-tolerance policies should be prepared for future challenges in those states prohibiting discrimination against and/or requiring accommodation of medical marijuana users. Eight other states besides Connecticut have passed similar medical marijuana laws that have express anti-discrimination protections for adverse employment actions: Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New York, Minnesota and Rhode Island. Those states may require the adjustment or relaxation of a hiring policy to accommodate a medical marijuana user. Additionally, courts in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have permitted employment discrimination lawsuits filed by medical marijuana users to proceed.
Finally, employers should be mindful of their drug policies’ applicability not only to current employees, but also to applicants.
![Canna We Talk Cannabis? Emerging Topics in Cannabis Law [PODCAST]](https://i0.wp.com/nationallawforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pexels-photo-2731667.jpeg?resize=825%2C510&ssl=1)
