A recent opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania serves a win to a medical marijuana card-holder who brought claims against an employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”), and Pennsylvania common law. The decision reflects careful fact pleading by the plaintiff. It also highlights a number of important themes for Pennsylvania employers, including the importance of evaluating job duties and having legitimate reasons for policies prohibiting off-duty marijuana use. In jurisdictions with employment protections for medical marijuana users, the decision also underscores the care employers should take if an employee or applicant discloses that they are a lawful medical marijuana user.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Card-Holder Survives Employer’s Motion to Dismiss
Elliot Fink
THC Found in CBD Tincture ‘Sparks’ Statutory Debate: SCOTUS Permits Fired Employee To Sue Cannabis Businesses Under CIVIL RICO Law
In Medical Marijuana, Inc. et al v. Horn, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) engaged in a lively statutory interpretation debate over the reach of the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although rarely confronted with fact patterns concerning the nation’s burgeoning cannabis industry, this case proved to be an exception for SCOTUS. Though this case will likely have minimal impact on employers, it does provide some important reminders for businesses engaged in the production of cannabis products.Continue Reading THC Found in CBD Tincture ‘Sparks’ Statutory Debate: SCOTUS Permits Fired Employee To Sue Cannabis Businesses Under CIVIL RICO Law
Purple Haze: LPA Mandate Poised to Continue Causing Confusion and Chaos for California Cannabis Licensees
It is not often that the government has the opportunity to regulate and oversee an entirely brand new market; and, in the case of California, when it legalized recreational cannabis for adult-use, it decided to mandate involvement of labor unions in the state’s emerging cannabis industry, through implementation of a Labor Peace Agreement (“LPA”) requirement. Because this fundamental choice by the state has posed headaches and dilemmas for licensees, cannabis business operators in California should ensure they receive counsel from reputable management-side labor attorneys before entering into any LPAs with unions. Amidst this haze and confusion, we offer some context and observations from a labor and management relations perspective.
Of note, despite going into effect over a month ago, only a tiny percentage of licensees and operators are complying with the mandate. Moreover, whether intentional or not, California’s LPA mandate has caused a union turf war, where bigger established unions have been looking to muscle out their smaller competitors for the dues of the thousands of workers in California’s burgeoning canna-industry. Critically, however, the legality of the LPA mandate is still being determined by the courts, where serious Constitutional questions abound, and because other states have been considering similar mandates, observers will continue monitoring what happens in California on this issue.Continue Reading Purple Haze: LPA Mandate Poised to Continue Causing Confusion and Chaos for California Cannabis Licensees