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tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer.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.

Medical Cannabis Research Bill Set to Become Law

Last week, the Senate unanimously passed H.R. 8454, or the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (the “Act”), sending the bill to President Biden’s desk for signature. The bill passed the House this summer by a vote of 325 – 95, and marks the first time a standalone cannabis bill has been approved by the federal government. Essentially, the Act is intended to simplify and expand research into the medical possibilities of both cannabis and cannabidiol as a treatment for certain serious ailments. However, the Act does not de-schedule cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, instead keeping cannabis a Schedule 1 drug. This means that cannabis will still be deemed to be a drug with a high likelihood for abuse, with no accepted medical use.

In particular, the Act provides for a streamlined process for the approval of cannabis research applications as follows:

  • An applicant under the Act must submit a completed application to the U.S. Attorney General, which the Attorney General must approve, deny, or request additional information within 60 days. The application must include: 1) details relating to the applicant’s research protocol, reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the “DHS”), the National Institutes of Health, or another agency, or according to provisions in the Federal Register, and 2) the safety measures to prevent diversion of cannabis substance (including storing it in a locked, constructed cabinet).
  • If the Attorney General requests additional information and the applicant so provides, the Attorney General must approve or deny the application within 30 days of the applicant providing such additional information. If the Attorney General ultimately denies any application, an explanation of the denial must be provided.
  • A registrant may update its research protocol without informing the Drug Enforcement Administration, if the quantity and form of cannabis, the source of the cannabis, and the conditions of storage will not change. If any of the foregoing items will change, the registrant must notify the Attorney General via registered mail or an electronic means permitted by the Attorney General.
  • If the Attorney General does not object to the changed protocol within 30 days, it is considered approved and the registrant may go ahead with the changed protocol.

Moreover, the Act also streamlines the process for applying to manufacture cannabis products for research purposes. The application timeline is similar to the research application process, but will only begin when the Attorney General posts in the Federal Register that the Attorney General’s office will increase the number of entities able to be registered under the Act as manufacturers of cannabis for medical research purposes. Then, entities may submit applications to the Attorney General. The application must show:

  • The requirements of the Act and the Federal Register have been satisfied.
  • The applicant will only transfer cannabis to those who are registered under the Act to perform preclinical or clinical research.
  • The applicant will only transfer or sell cannabis under the Act with the prior written consent of the Attorney General.
  • The applicant has completed the review process set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 823(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, which discusses general registration requirements for manufacturing Schedule I and II Controlled Substances.
  • The applicant has established and actually follows a process for storing and handling a Schedule I controlled substance.
  • A license to operate, if the State in which the applicant operates requires one.

The Act further authorizes registered covered institutions of higher education, like medical schools and research schools, to manufacture, distribute, dispense and possess cannabis for medical research, with guidance from the DHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Additionally, the Act allows for doctors to discuss with their patients, and their patients’ parents if the patient is a minor, the potential benefits and risks in using medical cannabis under state medical cannabis laws. Prior to the Act, it was unclear whether such an act was a punishable offense under federal law. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is hopeful this provision, and the Act in general, will help patients with conditions like Parkinson’s, epilepsy, and severe post-traumatic stress.

Lastly, the Act requires the DHS to report to Congress on particular topics of research, including but not limited to, the effects of cannabis on the human body, effects on the adolescent brain, potential impairment of cognitive ability, and barriers and solutions to studying cannabis from states with legal cannabis.

Importantly, there are a few things the Act does not do. The Act does not allow research using state-legalized products for medical research purposes; the Act only allows for using the products manufactured through the Act’s protocols. Therefore, there will not be research into the products people are currently using to treat their medical ailments under state medical cannabis laws. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Act does not de-schedule or re-schedule cannabis. President Biden issued an executive order in October asking the Secretary of the DHS and the Attorney General to begin the administrative process of de-scheduling cannabis. Presumably, research performed under this Act may lead to either de-scheduling or re-scheduling cannabis, but it is far too soon to tell.

Additionally, the Act does not implement more widespread reform. President Biden issued a pardon last month for simple cannabis possession offenses under federal law, but further reform will not be enacted unless the Senate passes one of several reform bills on the table. Even so, critics and proponents alike across the political spectrum, are lauding the Act as a necessary step for the federal government to catch up to the state legalization wave.

To read the full text of the Act, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8454/text.

Notes from New York Cannabis Control Board Meeting, October 2021

By Michael D. Schwamm and Joy Karugu

There were several outcomes of the inaugural New York Cannabis Control Board (CCB) Meeting held on October 5, 2021. The Meeting revealed that the CCB and the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) will be increasing their staff and taking steps to extend the medical cannabis program and cannabinoid hemp licensing. Also during the Meeting, Jason Starr was announced and voted in as the Chief Equity Officer of the OCM. He will work with Executive Director Chris Alexander in building New York’s social equity program. Continue reading “Notes from New York Cannabis Control Board Meeting, October 2021”

House Passes Bill To Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level

Today, the House of Representatives passed the groundbreaking MORE Act – legalizing marijuana at the federal level.  The bill passed by a vote of 228 to 164. 

As we previously discussed in our November 10th and September 4th blog posts, the MORE Act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019 – H.R. 3884) legalizes marijuana and cannabis at the federal level, by removing them from the Controlled Substances Act and eliminates some cannabis criminal records.

While the bill represents a first step toward legalizing cannabis, states would need to adopt similar measures to fully decriminalize its use – currently, 15 states and the District of Columbia have legalized (or recently voted to legalize) cannabis for adult recreational use, and 35 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis.

The bill also makes other changes, including:

  • Replaces statutory references to marijuana and marihuana with cannabis,
  • Requires the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly publish demographic data on cannabis business owners and employees,
  • Establishes a trust fund to support various programs and services for individuals and businesses in communities impacted by the war on drugs,
  • Imposes a 5% tax on cannabis products and requires revenues to be deposited into the trust fund,
  • Makes Small Business Administration loans and services available to entities that are cannabis-related legitimate businesses or service providers,
  • Prohibits the denial of federal public benefits to a person on the basis of certain cannabis-related conduct or convictions,
  • Prohibits the denial of benefits and protections under immigration laws on the basis of a cannabis-related event (e.g., conduct or a conviction), and
  • Establishes a process to expunge convictions and conduct sentencing review hearings related to federal cannabis offenses.

While Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), the Vice President-Elect, introduced a counterpart bill (S.2227) in the U.S. Senate, its passage in the chamber is unlikely this Congress as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has declined to endorse the bill.

While this legislation is unlikely to pass the Senate this Congress, proponents of cannabis legalization have hailed the House vote as historic, and an important first step toward generating the momentum and support needed to favorably position the measure for future congressional consideration.  And whether the measure would be approved by the next Congress likely depends on the outcome of the two Georgia Senate runoff elections scheduled for January 5, 2021.  If both Democratic Senate candidates, Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, win the runoffs, then the Democrats will control both the House and Senate, with Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.

However, it is unclear if President-Elect Joe Biden would sign the bill since he has proposed rescheduling cannabis as a schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts as opposed to removing it entirely from the list of scheduled substances.  While Biden has expressed support for decriminalization of marijuana, expungement of prior cannabis use convictions, and legalizing cannabis use for medical purposes – he has said he wants to leave decisions regarding adult recreational use to the individual states.  Nonetheless, marijuana legalization advocates believe this symbolic vote on the legislation could send a strong signal to the Biden administration that this is a Democratic priority.

Even though federal legalization may not be on the immediate horizon, the passage of the MORE Act in the House, and the legalization of adult-use and/or medical marijuana in five more states on November 3, 2020, could influence a Biden-appointed attorney general’s views on enforcement of marijuana related activities. While AG Sessions attempted to reverse the liberal Obama administration marijuana policies set forth in the Cole Memorandum, and AG Barr has reluctantly acknowledged that the Cole priorities have been relied on and should thus be followed, an AG appointed by Biden, given the current pro-legalization wave, Biden’s favoring of state’s rights on this issue, and Kamala Harris’s favoring of decriminalization, might endorse an approach consistent with, if not even more liberal than, the Cole priorities.   Thus, while the appointment of AG Sessions sent shockwaves through the cannabis industry, market participants and those who have been standing on the sidelines eager to get on the field seem to have a lot to look forward to.

DEA Announcement on Improving Access to Marijuana Research

On August 26, 2019, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) issued a press release announcing “it is moving forward to facilitate and expand scientific and medical research for marijuana in the United States.” This announcement comes in the midst of a growing demand for marijuana for medical and scientific research. Several years ago, in an August 11, 2016, press release, DEA first announced its intention to “expand… the number of DEA-registered marijuana manufacturers” because “only one entity was authorized to produce marijuana to supply researchers in the United States: the University of Mississippi.” Since that announcement, 33 entities have applied to DEA for a marijuana manufacturer registration. However, the approval process was stalled during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ term in office, and to date no new applications have been approved. Meanwhile, the number of entities registered by DEA to conduct research on marijuana, marijuana extracts or marijuana derivatives has jumped from 384 in January 2017 to 542 in January 2019. Thus, while demand for marijuana for research purposes has increased sharply, the number of suppliers has remained stagnant.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

NJ Senate and Assembly close in on expansion of medical use Cannabis – Brad A. Molotsky, Esq. – Duane Morris

The New Jersey Senate voted 33-4 yesterday (Thursday) to advance a bill that is intended to increase medical marijuana sales and likely create new business opportunities in the state.

Per Marijuana Business Daily, before the vote, the Senate amended Assembly Bill 10 to allow marijuana workers to become union members.

The Bill will now return to the NJ Assembly for a vote to approve the Senate’s modification.

If the Bill is ultimately signed, the measure will:

– Create a new regulatory commission for medical marijuana.
– Pave the way for the state to issue additional business licenses.
– Allow cannabis home delivery.
– Ease restrictions on the process for recommending medical marijuana.

Currently there are 12 vertically integrated medical cannabis licenses that have been granted in NJ.

We will continue to track this development and report back as it get’s closer to passage in the Assembly. -Brad

N.J. Appellate Division: Employee Stated Viable Claim Against Employer for Failure to Accommodate Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use

In a recent decision approved for publication on March 27, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed an issue of first impression: whether an employee can state a claim for disability discrimination based on an employer’s refusal to accommodate legal, off-duty use of medical marijuana, as permitted by the New Jersey Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (Compassionate Use Act).

In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., et al., A-3072-17T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2019), the plaintiff was a licensed funeral director for Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (Carriage). His duties included, among other things, driving the funeral home’s hearse and other vehicles. After working for Carriage for approximately three years, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident in the course of his employment. At the time of the accident, he was driving one of Carriage’s vehicles during a funeral when another driver ran a stop sign and struck the vehicle driven by the plaintiff.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Access to Medicinal Marijuana in New Jersey Improves

In response to Executive Order No. 6, issued by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, the New Jersey Department of Health (the “Department”) reviewed certain elements of New Jersey’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act and the implementation of the Medical Marijuana Program (“MMP”) (Executive Order 6 Report). …

The Department’s analysis resulted in the recommendation and approval of an immediate expansion to the MMP. The first stage of the expansion includes the addition of five conditions to the existing list of diagnoses for which medicinal marijuana can be prescribed. Patients with chronic pain related to Musculoskeletal Disorders, Migraines, Anxiety, chronic pain of Visceral Origin, and Tourette’s Syndrome are now eligible to participate in the MMP.

Read the full story on the Duane Morris Health Law Blog.

 

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress