Federal Overtime Law Covers Marijuana Industry Workers: US Appeals Court
The case has been closely watched by the marijuana industry and employment lawyers advising businesses in the cannabis space.
September 20, 2019 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Employers in the state-licensed cannabis industry must still pay their workers overtime in compliance with federal labor laws even though marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit said Friday.
A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a Colorado federal district court ruling allowing the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of marijuana security worker Robert Kenney to proceed against his former employer, Helix TCS Inc.
➤➤➤ Sign up for Higher Law Weekly Cannabis Newsletter
Kenney has alleged he and other employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, but Helix refused to pay overtime because they worked at Colorado-sanctioned marijuana outlets, which are considered illegal operations under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
"The district court correctly reasoned and case law has repeatedly confirmed that employers are not excused from complying with federal laws just because their business practices are federally prohibited," Senior Judge Stephanie Kulp Seymour of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit wrote in a 12-page opinion.
Seymour continued: "This has been true with respect to the FLSA in multiple contexts, strengthening the conclusion that it remains true in this novel context of the marijuana industry. Persuasive case law endorses the concept that the FLSA is focused on regulating the activity of businesses, in part on behalf of the individual workers' wellbeing, rather than regulating the legality of individual workers' activities."
Seymour was joined in the opinion by Judges Harris Hartz and Allison Hartwell Eid of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, who joined the appeals bench in 2017.
The panel offered no findings on the merits of Kenney's specific overtime claims. But the case has been closely watched by the marijuana industry and employment lawyers advising businesses in the cannabis space.
Helix TCS bills itself as "the premier operating services platform" in the cannabis industry. The company's brands offer tracking and compliance services as well as on-site security.
Attorneys for Helix argued that paying Kenney and other workers overtime would require a court to find that Congress intended to "both forbid" under the Controlled Substances Act "and reward" under the Fair Labor Standards Act "the same conduct: drug trafficking."
The appellate panel disagreed, however, finding that case law is clear that "employers are not excused from complying with federal laws because of their other federal violations."
"Contrary to Helix's claims, recognizing Mr. Kenney as covered by the FLSA is in line with both the plain reading and the overall purposes of that statute, and doing so does not require disavowal of the CSA," Seymour wrote.
Helix was represented by Jordan Factor, Jeremy Jonsen and Carissa Sears of Allen Vellone Wolf Helfrich & Factor. Lindsay Itkin and Michael Andrew Josephson of Josephson Dunlap represented Kenney.
The Tenth Circuit's decision is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 2Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
- 3Newsmakers: Scott Bailey Joins Jones Day’s Corporate Practice in Dallas
- 4The Swinging Pendulum of Title IX Politics
- 5The Big Weakness of Legal AI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250