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:
Read more:
Inside Quinn Emanuel's Plan to Dominate Cannabis Litigation
Forget Reefer Madness: Pot Law Goes Mainstream
Cannabis Company's Social Posts Catch FDA's Eye (And a Warning Letter)
A Big Law Cannabis Partner on What It Takes to Build a Practice
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
© 2025 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 All![Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2022/05/Allison-Jones-Rushing-2021-006-767x633.jpg)
Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
5 minute read![State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/11/Fee-Dispute-767x633.jpg)
State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation
5 minute read![Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/414/2024/03/Gavel-and-Justice-Scales.jpeg-image767x633cropped.jpg)
Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules
5 minute read![TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2022/04/TikTok-App-13-767x633-1.jpg)
TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law's Middle East Bet: Will It Pay Off?
- 2'Translate Across Disciplines': Paul Hastings’ New Tech Transactions Leader
- 3Milbank’s Revenue and Profits Surge Following Demand Increases Across the Board
- 4Fourth Quarter Growth in Demand and Worked Rates Coincided with Countercyclical Dip, New Report Indicates
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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