A California Superior Court recently granted class certification relative to a class of hundreds of employees against a group of dispensary defendants where the Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the off-the-clock work claims, meal and rest period claims, and reimbursement of necessary business expenses claims predominated over individual inquiries and were typical of the class. The Court did not rule on the merits of the integrated enterprise, alter ego, or joint employer arguments, nor did the Court agree with the Defendant’s arguments that the claims were not typical because the Plaintiffs were not employed by each Defendant. Nonetheless, the ruling is important for employers in general and cannabis dispensaries in particular.
Kathryn Brown authored the article “Prepare Workplace Policies for Legalized Cannabis,” which was published in the Legal Connections section of Columbus Business First.
On November 7, 2023, Ohio made history when a majority of voters approved Issue 2, a proposed law to control and regulate cannabis for Ohioans 21 and older. In so doing, Ohio became the 24th state to legalize cannabis for adult use without a medical card. Read the full article.
Another lawsuit challenging state regulations that attempt to curb the use of hemp-synthesized intoxicants (HSI) in consumer products was commenced last week.
In a complaint filed in federal court in Alaska on November 2, 2023, AK Industrial Hemp Assoc. et al. v. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, et al, the plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Alaska regulations that prohibit the sale in Alakska of hemp products for human consumption that contain delta-9 THC or synthetic cannabidiol.
There are now more than half a dozen lawsuits challenging state regulations that target HSIs, which further demonstrates the need for Congress to make clarifying changes to the definition of hemp in the 2023/24 Farm Bill to correct the loophole that has resulted in the proliferation of these intoxicating and potentially unsafe substances.
States legalizing cannabis are increasingly requiring that cannabis licensees enter agreements allowing unions access to their employees for organization activities. Some states go even further, not only requiring a labor peace agreement (LPA), but that employees agree on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) soon after licensure. As we previously reported, such requirements are especially prevalent along the East Coast, with varying labor requirements imposed by New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Delaware, and Connecticut, as well as California. Continue reading “Labor Peace Agreement Mandate Challenged in Federal Court”
Lawrence Kotler and Ryan Spengler authored The Legal Intelligencer article, “Bankruptcy Court Sides With Cannabis Business (Twice) in Reorg Plan.”
“In contrast with a majority of bankruptcy courts that routinely dismiss cannabis-related cases for perceived violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California in the recent opinion In re Hacienda, No. 2:22-BK-15163-NB, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023), refused to conform to the same historical standard. Instead, the Bankruptcy Court struck down the U.S. trustee’s motion to dismiss not once but twice in favor of confirming a marijuana business’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.”
They write, “The next time you find yourself at a gas station loading up for a road trip on your snack or energy drink of choice, you may notice a surprising offering at the counter: products made from cannabis that have an intoxicating effect, but that are not governed under a state’s recreational or medical marijuana laws and regulations.” Read the full article.
This restriction, referred to as a “Total THC Standard,” is intended to prevent the sale to consumers of ingestible, smokable, and otherwise consumable products that contain intoxicants derived from federally lawful hemp that are the functional equivalent of the delta-9 THC in federally unlawful marijuana. Such products have proliferated since the 2018 Farm Bill because chemical processes can be used to convert the chemicals in hemp into intoxicating compounds like delta-8 THC.
The Court in No. VA Hemp determined that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims because, among other things, the 2018 Farm Bill did not preempt states from regulating hemp products sold in their states.
The Nebraska Attorney General and the California Attorney General have filed lawsuits recently under their states’ consumer protection statutes targeting the manufacturers of hemp products containing Delta-8 THC, noting the health and safety risk to consumers of these products. Such products, known as “hemp synthesized intoxicants” or “HSIs” are often just as intoxicating as the Delta-9 THC in state-legal adult-use and medical marijuana, but may not be subject to the same types of licensure, testing, and packaging/labeling requirements imposed under state cannabis programs.
Opponents of HSIs argue that hemp was legalized as an agricultural commodity, and the 2018 Farm Bill was focused on the production (cultivation) of hemp, not consumer finished products that could be manufactured using its constituents. They posit that Congress did not intend for the chemicals in hemp to be converted into a host of compounds just as intoxicating as Delta-9 THC.
State AG consumer protection lawsuits against manufacturers of products containing HSIs are an attempt to curb their proliferation. Congress may address the perceived loophole that is being exploited to manufacturer HSIs in the forthcoming Farm Bill.
The 2018 Farm Bill legalized “Hemp,” defining it as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” The .3% delta-9 THC threshold distinguishes hemp from marijuana, which remains a federally unlawful Schedule I controlled substance, based on the psychoactive effect of delta-9 THC.
Today, consumers can walk into convenience stores, gas stations, and the like, or shop online, and purchase an array of cannabis products that have the same psychoactive effects as delta-9 THC in federally unlawful Marijuana, i.e., delta-9 THC at greater than .3% on a dry weight basis, but, because they were manufactured using “derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” found in Hemp, their manufacturers claim they are legal. These products, which contain delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, and other chemical compounds, are the result of chemical processes that convert the Hemp “derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” into compounds that are the functional equivalent of the delta-9 THC in federally unlawful Marijuana.
Manufacturers of delta-8 products believe the 2018 Farm Bill does not prohibit the conversion of the “derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” in Hemp into an intoxicating compound, which begs the question: did Congress really intend to legalize intoxicating compounds created from Hemp “derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers” that are functionally equivalent to the delta-9 THC in federally unlawful Marijuana? It would seem that the .3% delta-9 THC distinction between Hemp and Marijuana is about psychoactive effect, not about a particular chemical.
