The Duane Morris Cannabis Industry Group will present a webinar, Mainstreaming Cannabis: Legal Challenges and Considerations for Social Consumption Lounges, on Thursday, September 26, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern time.
Continue reading “Webinar: Legal Challenges and Considerations for Social Consumption Lounges”
By: Kathleen O’Malley and Danielle Dwyer
Recently, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced a Finding of Probable Cause by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) against Prince Telecom LLC (Prince) for declining to hire a medical marijuana user as a cable installation technician. The DCR found the job applicant was subject to disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The basis for the DCR’s determination was Prince’s rescission of a job offer after the applicant, a medical marijuana user, tested positive for cannabis in connection with a pre-employment drug screen.
Prince, a company that constructs and maintains telecommunications and cable systems, offered a technician job to the applicant pending a drug test. The applicant informed the company that he had a medical marijuana prescription and used marijuana to treat a disability. When the applicant tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer. Prince maintained that it could not provide the applicant with any accommodation given the safety-sensitive nature of the job duties of the position (such as, driving company vehicles, operating machinery, working with electrical wires, climbing ladders and lifting 50 pounds or more). According the DCR, Prince assumed that hiring a medical marijuana user to perform such tasks would expose the company to “enormous” liability.
The DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause because Prince did not ask the applicant for additional information about the nature of his disability; how often and what time of day the applicant used marijuana; and what effect, if any, his medical marijuana use might have on him during work hours. By failing to initiate discussions of that nature with the applicant, the DCR concluded that Prince did not meet its obligation to engage in the interactive process. Under the LAD, employers have an affirmative duty to consider reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees. Broadly speaking, this means an employer should have a dialogue with a disabled applicant or employee and should ask questions to determine whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Once the employer has sufficient information from the individual and/or the individual’s healthcare provider about the disability and any proposed accommodations, the employer can evaluate whether it is able to offer a reasonable accommodation without posing an undue burden on the company. Employers who fail to engage in this interactive process violate the LAD—which is exactly what the DCR has accused Prince of doing.
While the LAD protects individuals with disabilities, it is also worth noting that both medical and adult marijuana use are legal in New Jersey and the state has enacted protections for the use of marijuana. The Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (CUMCA) prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant (e.g., terminating or refusing to hire) based on the fact that the employee is registered as a medical marijuana user. The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects adult use of marijuana and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions due solely to a positive drug test for cannabis. CREAMMA also has specific and stringent protocols with respect to drug testing in the workplace. Because CREAMMA went into law after Prince rescinded the applicant’s job offer, the DCR did not review Prince’s conduct to determine whether it violated that statute as well.
Notably, the DCR did not find that Prince had to accommodate the applicant’s use of marijuana in workplace or that it had an obligation to hire him. The agency found that Prince had an obligation to engage in the interactive process—to gather information sufficient to consider whether it could have reasonably accommodated the applicant’s disability. If Prince had learned the applicant used medical marijuana after work hours and would not be impaired or under the influence when reporting for duty, Prince may have been able to reasonably accommodate the applicant’s disability. The laws in New Jersey are clear that employers have a right to maintain a drug-free workplace and do not have to accommodate use of medical marijuana in the workplace or during work hours. Based on the DCR’s finding, Prince’s error was that it made too hasty a decision and did not gather any information from the applicant to determine whether it could have accommodated his disability.
Of note, a Finding of Probable Cause is not a final determination on the merits. It means the DCR determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings against Prince. The parties will now have the opportunity to resolve the case voluntarily through conciliation. If the parties cannot resolve the matter, the case will move to the Office of Administrative Law or the Superior Court for further adjudication.
In the absence of federal enforcement action, state legislatures have stepped into the breach, enacting laws regulating products containing intoxicating substances that are chemically synthesized versions of chemicals in hemp. Those substances are referred to here as hemp-synthesized intoxicants or HSIs. Challenges to state authority to regulate HSI are being filed. In a recent decision that may foreshadow what is to come, a federal court declined to enjoin Wyoming’s hemp law.
As we have previously reported, the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act, commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill, opened the floodgates to unregulated intoxicating hemp products across the country. Though the 2018 Farm Bill authorized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate hemp-derived products intended for human consumption, the FDA has yet to promulgate rules for such products or HSIs. In the absence of federal regulations, states have begun to enact their own rules.
In Green Room LLC, et al. v. State of Wyoming, et al., a group of HSI wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers filed a federal suit challenging amendments to Wyoming’s hemp laws and requesting a preliminary injunction. In pertinent part, the amendments expanded the definition of THC to include any psychoactive structural, optical, or geometric isomers of THC, encompassing both CBD and the popular Delta-8 THC. Because cannabis remains illegal in Wyoming, the amendments effectively prohibited the possession, sale, transport, and production of intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp. The plaintiffs argued, in part, that the amendments were unconstitutional because they were preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill, which they claim legalized all hemp substances, including intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp, for intrastate and interstate purposes.
On July 19, 2024, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ request to enjoin enforcement of the new law, finding that they do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Specifically, the court found that the 2018 Farm Bill does not prevent states from regulating HSIs. The court found the 2018 Farm Bill did not confer any right on plaintiffs to manufacture or sell intoxicating products resulting from hemp, but merely redefined the term hemp. Most important, it held the 2018 Farm Bill contains an express “no preemption” clause permitting states to regulate hemp more stringently than federal law. The no preemption clause expressly permits a state to enact laws regulating intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp in a manner “more stringent” than the 2018 Farm Bill. The court further concluded that Wyoming’s amendments do not violate the dormant commerce clause, do not amount to a regulatory taking, and are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
Green Room is not the first challenge to state restrictions on HSIs. In Bio Gen LLC et al. v. Sanders et al., the State of Arkansas appealed a trial court decision enjoining Arkansas regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC. In Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., the plaintiffs, an HSI product manufacturer/distributor and consumer, appealed a trial court decision that denied their motion to enjoin the State of Virginia from enforcing Virginia regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC.
Those pending appeals present the possibility of a federal circuit split on the question whether the 2018 Farm Bill legalized intoxicating substances that could be derived from hemp. On behalf of the American Trade Association for Cannabis & Hemp, Duane Morris filed an amicus brief in each case that asserts that the 2018 Farm Bill did not legalize hemp-synthesized intoxicants, and it reserved for states the right to regulate such substances in the interest of public safety.
As more states roll out new restrictions on intoxicating hemp products and operators, we expect to see more challenges. Though not a final ruling on the merits of the suit, the court’s decision suggests these plaintiffs and others challenging state intoxicating hemp laws have an uphill battle ahead.
