Duane Morris is pleased to be a sponsor of the 2025 Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference in Chicago from June 8-10, 2025.
Use code DUANEMORRIS20 for a 20 percent discount on registration. Hope to see you there!
SB 3 Rolls into the Texas House of Representatives
After an hour and a half of debate on the Senate floor, Senate Bill (SB) 3 is engrossed. The bill received 24 ayes and 7 nos.
Senators who support the bill told stories of children and young adults losing all function after ingesting products containing intoxicating hemp. They emphasized how important it is for law enforcement officers to be able to immediately tell whether a product is illegal during a traffic stop, rather than make an assumption.
Opponents of the bill requested regulation instead of a total ban and raised the issue of veterans and other individuals who rely on these products rather than relying on alcohol and opioids for relief. Senator Charles Perry assured them that physician-prescribed hemp products will be more accessible under the Texas Compassionate-Use Program after a corresponding bill—SB 1505—is introduced and passes this Legislative Session.
Continue reading “SB 3 Rolls into the Texas House of Representatives”Employers Must Engage in the Interactive Process with Medical Marijuana Users and Cannot Refuse to Hire a Job Applicant Based on Marijuana Use Alone.
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tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer.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.
Federal Court Affirms Crackdown on Intoxicating Substances Synthesized from Hemp
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.
Cases We’re Watching: Constitutionality of State Restrictions on Cannabis Advertising
By Paul Josephson and James Hearon
State cannabis advertising bans are getting their day in court, albeit before the federal Fifth Circuit, a court that has been increasingly hostile to regulation.
In February 2022, Mississippi enacted the Medical Cannabis Act, legalizing medical marijuana within the state. The Act granted the Mississippi Department of Health (“MDOH”) authority to establish and promulgate rules and regulations governing the advertising of medical cannabis.
The Act made clear that any proposed rules or regulations could not prohibit a cannabis operation from engaging in certain types of marketing and advertising, including displaying appropriate signage on the licensed premises, listing in business directories and other publications, or displaying logos or other branding materials. In promulgating its proposed regulations, MDOH prohibited licensees from advertising or marketing in any form of media (i.e., broadcast, electronic, print, etc.)
In November 2023, Tru Source Medical Cannabis, LLC challenged MDOH’s advertising restriction as a violation of the First Amendment. In January 2024, the Northern District of Mississippi federal court upheld the advertising ban and dismissed the lawsuit, entitled Cocroft, et al. v. Graham, et al., in its entirety. The district court relied extensively on the Montana Supreme Court’s analysis in Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State of Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016), rejecting a similar challenge to cannabis ad regulations. The district court agreed that “an activity that is not permitted by federal law—even if permitted by state law—is not a ‘lawful activity’” and, thus, does not qualify for commercial speech protection. Tru Source appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit.
We are closely watching the Fifth Circuit’s decision to see whether antipathy for cannabis or regulatory overreach will prevail. The circuit, which embraces Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, has been making headlines lately for rulings hemming in the authority of federal agencies. In recent cases, the Fifth Circuit rejected FDA rules permitting use of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone (just overturned by the Supreme Court late last week), tossed out the SEC’s system for adjudicating enforcement cases, and declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism unconstitutional (also reversed by the Supreme Court). The Fifth Circuit has been in the legal spotlight, and its rulings have been keeping the Supreme Court busy.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision is also likely to implicate a much broader and unsettled legal question; that is, whether constitutional protections apply to state-legal, but federally prohibited, conduct. In 2022 and 2023, we saw a number of constitutional challenges to residency requirements in state cannabis regulations alleging that such requirements discriminate against out-of-state operators and violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Several courts, including the First Circuit and the Eastern District of Michigan, have held that discriminatory residency requirements likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Other federal courts, such as the Western District of Washington and the District of Maryland, have found that, because cannabis is federally illegal, the Dormant Commerce Clause likely does not apply—the same rationale relied on by the district court in Cocroft.
The Fifth Circuit’s recent history as a venue where regulators have fared poorly suggests Mississippi’s outright ban on commercial speech by state-legal businesses will get a hard look. Briefing will be complete shortly, and we would expect oral argument and a decision before year end.
DEA Rescheduling, Pa. Legalization Efforts May Breathe New Life Into Cannabis Practices
Duane Morris cannabis industry group team lead Paul Josephson spoke with The Legal Intelligencer on Pennsylvania cannabis legalization as the Drug Enforcement Administration has officially moved to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance.
“There’s not a legal practice area that hasn’t touched or worked for our cannabis practice here,” he said, although he and other attorneys emphasized the potential growth in financing work should rescheduling and local legalization efforts go through.
“Removing this from Schedule I … it provides immediate tax relief to companies in the cannabis business,” Josephson said, explaining that as the law currently stands, cannabis businesses aren’t allowed to deduct business expenses when they calculate and pay taxes, resulting in razor-thin profit margins. “When rescheduling happens, when that monkey comes off the back of the industry, it will improve cashflows for everyone in the business and allow for more investment.” Read more on the Duane Morris website.
EEO-1 Filing Deadline Is Fast Approaching for Large Cannabis Employers
Having just submitted your company’s tax returns for 2023—no easy feat as a cannabis business—you may be hoping for a break from regulatory filings. If your business has 100 or more employees, however, you may need to assemble 2023 data for an entirely different purpose as another federal filing deadline looms in June of 2024.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws, requires private employers that had 100 employees in the fourth calendar quarter of 2023 (October 1- December 31) to file an EEO-1 Component 1 report. The report consists of specific workforce data, including job titles and sex, race and ethnicity demographics. Continue reading “EEO-1 Filing Deadline Is Fast Approaching for Large Cannabis Employers”
Class Certification For Wage & Hour Claims Against Cannabis Dispensaries Granted by California State Court
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.
To read the full text of this article by Seth A. Goldberg and Nick Baltaxe, please visit the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog.
Bipartisan House Bill Shows Feds May Be Relaxing Stance on Marijuana in Employment Decisions
Although several states have relaxed their stances on marijuana, and in turn protected employees’ lawful off-duty use of marijuana, employees (and often contractors) of the federal government are usually excluded from these protections. Marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, and thus is unlawful, without exceptions.
However, the federal government is starting to take steps towards softening its stance on marijuana, which may be welcomed news to many considering that the federal government is the largest employer in the United States.
On July 27, 2023, Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced bipartisan legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow job applicants who are current or former marijuana users to receive federal security clearances and have access to federal job opportunities. The Act, titled the Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act, or the “CURE Act,” would amend the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to prohibit current or past use of marijuana from being a consideration with respect to a person’s eligibility for security clearances or eligibility for employment with the federal government.
Individuals who are denied security clearance or employment will also be afforded the opportunity to have that decision reviewed by the applicable federal agency under the Act. If it is determined that current or past marijuana use was the reason for the denial, the agency is to reconsider the same.
The Act, in its current form, is silent as to whether federal agencies can continue to test current employees for marijuana, and what actions, if any, agencies can take against current employees who test positive for marijuana.
The CURE Act has a ways to go before it becomes law, and it is likely to meet significant resistance along the way. Nevertheless, the progress marijuana has made in becoming more acceptable and mainstream is evident, and those on Capitol Hill are taking notice.
NYS Office of Cannabis Management June 2023 Updates
This week, the New York State Cannabis Advisory Board (CAB) and the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) held meetings to discuss the current state of the cannabis industry and proposed regulations and legislation. The CCB is the approval and oversight body of the Office of Cannabis Management and is responsible for approving the regulatory framework for New York’s cannabis industry. This includes licensing cannabis businesses and approving the regulations and rules that will govern the cannabis industry in the state.
Cannabis Advisory Board Meeting
On June 13, 2023, the CAB met at CUNY School of Law in Queens to discuss the revised proposed regulations after receiving 3,500 public comments. These regulations range from focusing on achieving environmental and sustainability targets in the industry to rules for third-party platforms. Current proposals involve allowing the current Registered Organizations (i.e. vertically integrated medical cannabis operators) to co-locate three adult use dispensaries among their eight medical dispensaries. The CCB will vote on the final regulations at its first meeting in September. The CAB and CCB’s hope is to have a live functioning cannabis industry “with all the bells and whistles.”
The Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) License is the first retail dispensary license available to businesses in New York State. These licenses are awarded to justice-involved New Yorkers and their family members. A “justice-involved” individual is someone who has been convicted of certain marijuana-related offenses in New York.
The State hopes to create a foundation to support an equitable industry. The CAB discussed the benefits of being a part of the CAURD Academy, which offers live education, seminars, office-hour meetings, calls with operators from other states, one-on-one mentorship, vendor demos, and access to accountants. Twenty-five licensees have taken part in the Academy thus far.
The CAB also discussed the NY Social & Economic Equity Plan and its recent report analyzing the national landscape of the cannabis market. Between 1980 and 2021, cannabis-related misdemeanor and felony convictions resulted in lost lifetime earnings of approximately $31 billion, and Black and Hispanic people accounted for 83% of those losses.
Acknowledging that it is inherently difficult for small operators to compete against large corporations, regardless of funding, the CAB agreed that New York State must protect its two-tiered market, enforce antitrust laws, protect against predatory practices, and approve regulations that are pro-competition and pro-employee. The CAB noted that cannabis cultivators and farmers want a clear path to licensure, additional Registered Organizations, and a community-driven incubator program.
Cannabis Control Board Meeting
On June 15, 2023, the CCB met in Buffalo to discuss recent Board updates and hear from the public. Chair Tremaine Wright opened the meeting by assuring New York residents that the state is continuing to open more dispensaries, expand access, and further develop New York’s cannabis supply chain.
The CCB approved Resolution No. 2023-23: Consideration of Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensaries. This adds 36 CAURD licenses in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Central NY, Mid-Hudson, and‒for the first time‒the Finger Lakes. Seven dispensaries were approved in the Finger Lakes region. This approval brings the number of CAURD to 251. Wright said these locations will help farmers get more of their product to market.
The Board then presented updates to the market. There are currently 13 open retailers statewide with more than 40 in development. Twenty-one percent of New Yorkers now live in a city with legal cannabis access. Some dispensaries are delivery-only, which is a new form for the state. Consumers are asked to look for a QR code on the window of the dispensary confirming that it is approved by the state. Retail sales are growing; cannabis sales year-to-date are $22.6 million. Some of the dips in sales were attributed to pop-up shops that have transition to brick-and-mortar spaces, which often require a brief shutdown to build out a new space. Product innovations are occurring regularly. Flower sales make up 51% of the revenue, with the rest split between beverages, complex caramels, premium vapes, and more. This widening of product options draws more consumers to the legal market.
The Executive Director reported next that under a newly enacted law, the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) and the taxing authorities began raids on unlicensed businesses since June 7, 2023. This law allows OCM to take action against businesses selling cannabis without licenses, bolsters OCM authority by conducting regulatory inspections, utilizes court orders to padlock doors if necessary, and allows OCM to seize illicit cannabis.
Each location inspected is issued a notice of violation for selling cannabis without a license. The maximum penalty is $10,000 per day, plus potential additional penalties and consequences if sales continue.
Finally, during the closing comments, board member Reuben McDaniel resigned, presumably as a result of the perceived conflict of interest of his being both a CCB board member and also as the president of DASNY.