California Spikes Proposed Workplace Marijuana Protections
Opponents of the bill—including the state Chamber of Commerce and drug-tester Quest Diagnostics—argued the proposed worker protections were too broad and threatened employers' statutory authority to maintain a drug-free workplace.
May 25, 2018 at 04:22 PM
4 minute read
California lawmakers on Friday shelved legislation that would have offered employment protections to qualified medical marijuana users.
The bill died without debate in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Advocates had sought to bring California in line with a handful of other marijuana-legal states that require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to medical cannabis users so long as the employees don't come to work impaired or cause an undue hardship on business operations.
The bill, AB 2069, faced opposition from businesses and trade groups, including the state Chamber of Commerce, drug-tester Quest Diagnostics and the Personal Insurance Federation of California. They argued that the proposed worker protections were too broad and threatened employers' statutory authority to maintain a drug-free workplace.
California employers still enjoy broad discretion to make hiring and firing decisions based on their workers' now-legal marijuana use. The state Supreme Court in 2008 held in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications that businesses are not required to accommodate medical cannabis users.
The Legislature decided the fate of several other marijuana-regulating bills on Friday. Here's the latest:
➤➤ AB 3157, which would have temporarily reduced the 15 percent cannabis excise tax to 11 percent and suspended a by-the-ounce cultivation tax, also died in the appropriations committee. The bill was an effort to encourage more black-market marijuana operators to get licensed. Lower-than-projected tax revenues suggest some growers are shunning the new regulatory system.
Although the bill sailed out of two policy committees with bipartisan support, the appropriations committee on Friday rejected numerous bills offering tax cuts and tax credits.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, said in an email that the state's illicit cannabis market will continue to thrive “until legal businesses are put on a more level playing field. The next round of state tax collection numbers will be released in early August and that will be a time to reassess whether the current system is working.”
➤➤ Legislation to create a closed-loop, state marijuana banking system survived a spending committee vote. SB 930 would allow limited-charter banks and credit unions to accept deposits from marijuana businesses and to provide restricted check-writing ability for those customers, who are typically shunned by traditional banks.
➤➤ Lawmakers also approved a bill to allow cannabis operations to deduct business expenses from their state taxes in the same way other companies do. That practice is banned at the federal level, creating a major tax expense for cannabis businesses in marijuana-legal states. The bill is sponsored by the California Cannabis Industry Association.
Read more:
Higher Law: Protecting Pot Brands | Cannabis Banking Updates
Here's Where Weedmaps Is Spending Its Lobbying Cash
Weed in the Workplace: What are California Employers' Rights?
Paul Hastings Will Lobby on Marijuana for Mobile Payments Venture
Venable's Tracking Cannabis for New Digital Money Lobbying Client
➤➤ Get the latest cannabis lawyering, compliance and commentary straight to your inbox with Higher Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
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 AllLatham Adds Former Treasury Department Lawyer for Cross-Border Deal Guidance
2 minute readLaw Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
- 2Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, says NJ Supreme Court
- 3DC Lawsuits Seek to Prevent Mass Firings and Public Naming of FBI Agents
- 4Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
- 5Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
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