equal pay oregon marijuana employmentIn 2017 Oregon passed sweeping Equal Pay Legislation. Towards the end of August, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) issued draft rules implementing the Oregon Equal Pay Act. This series of post is exploring those new rules and how they will affect cannabis businesses. In my last post, I unpacked the definition of “compensation” under the Equal Pay Act and the proposed rules. This week I’ll discuss “work of a comparable character.”

The Oregon Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying wages or other compensation to “any employee at a rate greater than that at which the employer pays wages or other compensation to employees of a protected class for work of a comparable character.” To put it simply, cannabis businesses need to pay employees doing the same work the same pay. But what is “work of a comparable character?”

Work of a comparable character is not determined simply by job title alone. Two cannabis workers who have the same job title but perform different tasks are not necessarily performing “work of a comparable character.” Similarly, two cannabis workers that perform essentially the same tasks but have different job titles may be performing work of a comparable character.

According to the BOLI draft rules, to determine if different jobs constitute “work of a comparable character” the employer must consider whether the jobs require “substantially similar knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.” No one factor is determinative. Meaning, an employer should balance the factors against each other to determine if employees are performing the same work and therefore should be receive equal pay. The proposed BOLI rules further define each factor.

  • Knowledge. When considering whether two jobs require similar “knowledge,” the employer should consider whether the jobs require similar education, experience, or training.
  • Skill. Things to consider to determine if two jobs require the same “skill” include the ability, agility, coordination, efficiency or experience required to perform the job.
  • Effort. Considerations to determine the “effort” of a job include the “amount of physical or mental exertion needed; amount of sustained activity; or complexity of job tasks performed.”
  • Responsibility. To determine if responsibility of two positions are “similar,” an employer should consider the “accountability, decision-making discretion, or impact of an employee’s exercise of their job functions on the employer’s business; amount, level, or degree of significance of job tasks; autonomy or extent to which the employee works without supervision; extent to which the employee exercises supervisory functions; or extent to which an employee’s work or actions expose an employer to risk or liability.
  • Working conditions. Finally, to determine if employees are working in similar “working conditions” an employer should consider the “work environment; hours; time of day worked; physical surroundings; and potential hazards.”

Determining how to pay your employees is not an easy task. The Equal Pay Act, while it has good intentions, may make that task even more difficult. Regardless, now is the time to analyze how you are paying your cannabis employees. Now is the time to look at the jobs that are being performed, identify work of a comparable character, and adjust wages accordingly. If you’re unsure whether two workers should be receiving equal pay, you should contact an employment attorney.

The Equal Pay Act pay provisions are effective on January 1, 2019. Again, now is the time to ensure compliance before BOLI starts handing out penalties next year.

Today let’s talk about Matthew Price, the Oregon marijuana businessman headed to jail for tax crimes. This story got a lot of coverage when it broke last month, partly because it was the first known tax-related prosecution for a licensed pot business owner, and partly because Price was fairly well known in Oregon. He once sat on an Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) rules advisory committee for cannabis retail, and he owned three dispensaries. Seems like he was off to a pretty good start.

Well, not any longer. In addition to the seven-month lockup, Price was ordered to pay the I.R.S. $262,776 in restitution on the nearly $1 million in taxable income he raked in from 2011 to 2014. He will probably never be allowed to participate in the OLCC program again, given the agency’s recent tightening of the screws, and its authority to bar anyone with a federal conviction “substantially related to the fitness and ability of the applicant” to obtain a license.

cannabis marijuana tax IRS

Generally speaking, marijuana businesses are liable for lots of tax under IRC 280E. As cannabis business lawyers, we work with CPAs and others to attempt to mitigate our clients’ tax liability, but at the end of the day, that liability is always there. Tax obligations do not end at the federal level, of course: Most states have income tax programs, and all states with legal cannabis programs seem to collect additional taxes on the sale of marijuana. In Oregon, for example, that sales tax must be escrowed by OLCC retailers and paid to the state Department of Revenue. As to Matthew Price, the news reporting was silent on whether he was also shirking those payments.

Having advised state-legal cannabis businesses since 2010, we have seen a lot of monkey business when it comes to tax. We have seen bad lawyers advise clients not to pay taxes, on the theory that tax programs violate business owners’ rights against self-incrimination. We have seen businesses attempt to claim “non-profit” status and avoid taxes in that manner, despite the impossibility of receiving an I.R.S. exemption. And we’ve seen lots of “management company” schemes, most of which are nonsense. At the end of the day, a baseline level of tax is unavoidable.

Interestingly and appropriately, the judge in this case didn’t seem to treat Price differently because his income derived from cannabis sales. It was reported that federal prosecutors petitioned the judge to go hard on Price, in order to send a message to the marijuana industry. The judge wasn’t having that:

The fact that the product involved here is marijuana is utterly meaningless to me in passing a sentence,” the judge said. “It’s a tax case to me.”

That didn’t stop the Justice Department from bragging a bit, but it’s encouraging to see cannabis entrepreneurs being treated like everyone else — in theory, anyway — and for better or worse. On that point, we have often said on this blog that just because someone is violating one federal law by trading in cannabis, that doesn’t make it a good idea to violate all the others. And we always advise entrepreneurs to run their cannabis business like real businesses. That includes paying taxes.

oregon marijuana equal pay

Back in 2017, the Oregon legislature passed equal pay legislation prohibiting employers from asking applicants about compensation history. The law is known as the Equal Pay Act. This law, like other employment laws, applies to cannabis businesses. The equal pay provision of the law goes into effect on January 1, 2019. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) was tasked with drafting rules implementing the Equal Pay Act and recently released draft rules. This series of posts will unpack the new rules and explain the impacts on your cannabis business.

The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying disparate compensation for work of a comparable character. The Equal Pay Act defines compensation as “wages, salary, bonuses, benefits, fringe benefits and equity-based compensation.” What this means is each of these taken in total is an employee’s compensation. The proposed BOLI rules provide clarification to each of the words that make up “compensation.”

BOLI defines benefits as:

“the rate of contribution that an employee makes irrevocably to a trustee or to a third person under a plan, fund or program; or the rate of costs to the employer in providing benefits to an employee beyond what is required by federal, state or local law pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan or program which is committed to the employee affected including but not limited to the following: medical or hospital care; pensions on retirement or death; compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity; insurance to provide any of [the above]; unemployment benefits; life insurance; disability insurance; sick leave pay; accident insurance; vacation or holiday pay; or defraying costs of other bona fide fringe benefits.”

But what does this long-winded definition actually mean? As an example, if you have two extraction technicians that perform substantially the same work, you need to provide them the same benefits, otherwise you will be in violation of the equal pay laws. If you provide one health insurance, you need to provide the other the same level of health insurance. Etc.

Bonus, similarly has been given a long definition. Bonus is defined as:

“an amount that is paid or something of monetary or quantifiable value that is given to an employee by an employer in addition to the employee’s regular rate of pay, typically as a means of encouragement or in recognition of superior performance. Bonuses include but are not limited to the following: signing or job acceptance bonuses; attendance bonuses; loyalty bonuses; performance bonuses; and productivity bonuses.”

Again, if you provide a performance bonus to one extraction technician, you must provide a bonus on the same terms to any other extraction technician. A future post will discuss in detail exactly what the “same terms” means.

Finally, “salary” is defined as a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation paid for each pay period of one week or longer. And “wages” means all compensation for performance of service by an employee for an employer. Your extraction technicians need to be receiving the same salary or wages otherwise, you’ll be in violation of the rules.

All of the above definitions need to be considered in total when setting compensation for your employees. Remember–work of a comparable character must be paid the same. And yes, a future post will explore what “comparable character” means.

The Equal Pay portion of the Equal Pay Act officially goes into effect on January 1, 2019. Now is the time to get familiar with the law and its implementing rules, and to ensure you are paying your cannabis employees in accordance with the requirements. If you are unsure, consult an attorney to review your pay practices. Non-compliance will come with hefty fines.

City cannabis licensing in action.

Recently, the City of Portland announced that it would lower cannabis business licensing fees. Most notably, retail license fees have been reduced from $4,975 to $3,500, in line with other license types. That is still too steep (especially considering the state licensing fees), and although the City has cleaned up its process over the past few years, it’s still redundant, unnecessary and something of a cluster. Like all cities, Portland should stop licensing cannabis businesses.

It’s been over three years since Portland adopted its poorly written Code Chapter 14B.130, which sets forth license procedures and requirements for marijuana businesses. The oppressive fee schedule adopted at that time placed an outsized burden on retailers to cover the cost of administering the Portland Marijuana Policy Program. In the early days, the program was staffed by functionaries at the Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI) who shall go unnamed and mostly seemed to follow each other in circles, sometimes passing applicants back and forth with the Bureau of Development Services (BDS). Most of those folks have moved on.

ONI has since been rebranded as the Office of Community & Civic Life (people still call it ONI) and slotted under a different Commissioner. All of this followed from campaign promises made by Portland’s new mayor, who acknowledged that the City’s relationship with marijuana was a mess. For further reading on how bad it got — from credible estimates that local red tape was costing the industry $22 million per month, to disapproving letters penned by Congressional reps — go here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The City’s actions also caused one of my all-time favorite Oregon cannabis rumors: A class action suit would be filed “any day now” by private industry against the City. It’s been a trip.

Three years later, the Marijuana Policy Program is better run, and the lawyers and paralegals in my office get along with everyone there and push licenses through on the regular. But the question remains: What exactly is the point of having a local regulatory program for cannabis businesses? Everything is redundant to what the state is doing, and when it’s not, it’s usually worse. So why do cities think this is a good idea?

Those are complex and provocative discussions, but the motivation by cities may be some combination of the following: 1) licensing cannabis generates revenues; 2) licensing cannabis generates jobs; 3) licensing cannabis is novel; 4) licensing cannabis may appease people who dislike pot businesses; 5) cities may already be licensing alcohol (although to a lesser extent, invariably); 6) other cities are licensing cannabis; and 7) it’s hard for regulators not to regulate things. All in all, it’s a dismal mix.

Unfortunately, there is not much that industry can do when a city decides it wants to license cannabis. In states where legal marijuana markets exist, cities (and counties) have significant leeway in dealing with cannabis businesses. Some cities opt out entirely; others choose to license. Still others take a middle path, charging a variety of fees and taxes to hapless pot businesses but stopping short of licensure. Although fees and taxes are burdensome, those cities tend to avoid the logjams that prevent many businesses from even getting off the ground.

In all, the Portland experience is not unique. Hilary Bricken has been writing on this blog for some time about City of Los Angeles’ convoluted three-phase licensing protocol, for example, and the unintended consequences that come with it. Others have taken a broader survey, chronicling “extortionate” application, permit and license fees from municipalities nationwide. In comparison to some locales, cities like Portland and Los Angeles don’t seem so bad.

It’s also important to remember that cities can do a lot of good for cannabis, if they skip the licensing step and focus on other things. In August, Portland directed $350,000 in funds toward record-clearing and workforce efforts for communities that prohibition has impacted disproportionately. It also dropped another $150,000 to support equitable cannabis initiatives. Both announcements were met with general approval.

Most recently, Portland rolled out a “Social Equity Program”, which modestly reduces licensing fees to qualifying businesses. Before you get too impressed, though, consider: The better move would be dropping the licensing structure altogether.

oregon marijuana cannabis data securityLast week we discussed the data breach notification laws with which cannabis companies doing business in Oregon must comply following a cyber intrusion. Today, we discuss the safeguards these companies must adopt to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of customers and employee (collectively, “Consumer”)’s personal information, who reside in Oregon.

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) § 646A.622 any business that “owns, maintains or otherwise possesses, and has control over or access to,” written and electronic data that includes personal information used for business purposes, must develop, implement, and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the personal information.

Generally, “personal information” means a Consumer’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with, for example, a Consumer’s social security number, driver license number or financial account information, if (1) encryption, redaction or other methods have not rendered the data element or combination of data elements unusable; and (2) the data element or combination of data elements would enable a person to commit identity theft against a consumer.

The company must act in accordance with this law by:

(1) Complying with:

  • State or federal laws with greater protections for personal information than ORS § 646A.622;
  • Gramm-Leach-Billey Act as of January 1, 2016 as of June 2018, if the company is subject to this act; or
  • Requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) as of June 2018, if HIPAA applies to the company;

and

(2) Implementing a security program that includes:

Administrative Safeguards, such as:

  • Frequently identifying reasonably foreseeable internal and external risks;
  • Frequently training and managing employees in security program practices and procedures; and
  • Selecting service providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate safeguards and adhering to procedures and protocols to which you and the service provider agree, but also requiring the service providers by contract to maintain the safeguards, procedures and protocols.

 Technical Safeguards, like:

  • Assessing risks and vulnerabilities in network and software design;
  • Taking reasonably timely action to address the risks and vulnerabilities; and
  • Applying security updates and a reasonable security patch management program to software that might reasonably be at risk of or vulnerable to a breach of security;

and

 Physical Safeguards, including but not limited to:

  • Monitoring, detecting, preventing, isolation and responding to intrusions timely and frequently; and
  • Disposing of personal information after you no longer use it for business purposes, pursuant to local, state and federal law.

So what does all of this mean? Simply put, business owners with 100 or fewer employees (which includes almost all Oregon cannabis businesses), will comply with these statutory requirements if their information security and disposal program contains administrative, technical and physical safeguards and disposal measures that are appropriate to: (1) the size and complexity of their business; (2) the nature and scope of their activities; and (3) the sensitivity of the personal information collected from or about a Consumer.

Cannabis business should take these safeguard standards seriously. Each violation if subject to a penalty of up to $1,000. Note that each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation, but the maximum penalty for any occurrence is $500,000. Civil penalties under ORS § 183.745 may also apply.

Complying with ORS § 646A.222 is not only required by law, it is also a very good idea for all cannabis business. Indeed, developing a vetted, comprehensive plan of action is the best way to effectively respond to an attack and to reduce the amount of damage to your company. Be safe out there!

OLCC marijuana license employment
Your license transition plan should consider employees.

You’re new to the Oregon cannabis scene and quickly realize you won’t be able to open a newly licensed cannabis retail store due to the Oregon Liquor Control Commissions (OLCC) pause on issuing new licenses that went into effect on June 15. But what about purchasing an existing retail store from a licensee?

It is possible to purchase a retail marijuana business and receive a license from OLCC. However, no money or control of the store can take place until the OLCC vets the new ownership to ensure compliance with the marijuana rules and statute. Typically, the seller and buyer enter into binding agreements to sell the store (technically, an asset or stock purchase) pending approval from the OLCC of the change in ownership. As we recently wrote, the OLCC recently increased scrutiny on these applications and can take up to 3-6 months to approve. During that time, your dreams of owning a retail cannabis store are paused. However, based on our recent discussions with the OLCC, there is a legal way to start the transition to the new owner without violating the rules: through employees.

Employees are a key part of any business. Employees keep the day to day operations of business running smoothly. In a retail store, they are the face of the company. It’s important to select people you trust and will work hard for your company. One way to begin control of the new company is to enter into an agreement with the seller to hire certain employees. There are a lot of things to consider when doing this—so it’s important to do it right.

First, it’s probably best to mention this when you first begin sale negotiations. Let the seller know you’d like to immediately “place” employees of your choice, who will be hired by the seller, prior to OLCC approval of the change in ownership. It’s best to be up front with these things rather than watch your deal fall apart later because you failed to mention your intentions.

If the seller agrees, the seller will need to hire the employees. Remember: You the purchaser cannot have a financial interest or control in the company until the OLCC approves. The employees will either need to be hired on a short term employment agreement to terminate when the sale is finalized, or enter into an employment agreement that will be assignable to the new entity once the sale is finalized. This would be a great time to talk with an Oregon cannabis employment attorney  to ensure everything is done correctly.

You’ll also want to be super clear with the employees about the arrangement. Again, you don’t want your employment relationship with the individuals to fall apart because you weren’t clear that the employee’s boss or employment status will change once the OLCC application is approved.

Assuming all of that goes smoothly, what kind of employees should you hire? For the transition period, its best to hire those that will exhibit decision making powers such as managers and supervisors. Qualified people in higher up positions tend to be more difficult to find. Get them in early and the transition will be even easier.

You might not be able to run the business the way you want during the period the OLCC is reviewing the change in ownership application, but you may be able to instill employees that can start the transition for you.

noncompete marijuana cannabis
Noncompetes aren’t always enforceable.

Marijuana has been legal in Oregon for about three years now. Employees with specialized skills are starting to jump ship and head to competitors. What do you do, as an employer, if a candidate for employment shows you a non-competition agreement they signed with their former employer? Typically, the former employer will go after the employee to enforce the non-competition agreement, but the former employer may seek an injunction against your business to prohibit you from hiring the candidate.  Is there a way around this? Perhaps.

First, you should consider whether the non-competition agreement is enforceable. As we’ve previously discussed, non-competition agreements in Oregon are highly disfavored. Non-competition agreements in Oregon are only enforceable if the employee was making at least the median income of a family of four at the time of termination and the employee was given the non-competition agreement at least two weeks prior to the commencement of employment, or if the non-competition agreement was entered into as a part of a bona-fide advancement with the employer. If these factors are not met, the agreements are not enforceable.

However, this does not automatically invalidate the agreement. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in Bernard v. S.B., Inc. that the employee must take affirmative steps to invalidate or void the obligation of the non-competition agreement. Meaning, they need to send a written notice to the former employer that they intend to void the agreement. Have an attorney review the agreement to determine if its enforceable in the first place, if it’s not, it may be easy for the potential employee to void the agreement and make it safe for you to hire the individual.

Second, some employees may have entered into non-competition agreements in other states. Those agreements may be entirely enforceable under choice of law provisions in the agreements. What then? It’s time for negotiation skills. Some companies may not want to deal with the hassle of attempting to enforce a non-competition agreement and may agree to sign a waiver releasing the former employee from their obligations under the agreement. Others may truly want to enforce the non-competition agreement and refuse to release the employee from the agreement. At that point, you may want an attorney on your side to review the non-competition agreement and see if there is a way to avoid violating it. Perhaps the agreement only prohibits the employee from working with edibles, but you plan on utilizing the employee’s skills to clone plants, for example. Further, an attorney may be able to work with the former employer to convince them to waive the non-competition agreement.

Non-competition agreements can be a good tool to protect your investment in your employees and to protect trade secrets. Alternatively, they can be a pain when you are attempting to hire. Whatever side you’re on, it’s always best to have an attorney on your side to review the agreement and ensure your company is protected to the fullest extent.

oregon marijuana data breach cyberA few weeks ago, we mentioned that cannabis companies that fall victim to a data breach are required, under state law, to inform employees and customers whose data was compromised by the intrusion. However, not every stolen piece of information demands notification. This post further dives into these laws—all 50 states have now enacted breach notification laws—by addressing the notification requirements imposed by the State of Oregon.

Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 646A.602 defines “breach of security” as “an unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that materially compromises the security, confidentiality or integrity of personal information that a person maintains.” “Personal information” means an Oregon resident’s:

  • Social security number;
  • Driver license number or state identification card number;
  • Passport number or other identification number;
  • Financial account number, credit card number or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code or password that would permit access to a consumer’s financial account;
  • Physical characteristics, such as an image of a fingerprint, retina or iris, that are used to authenticate the consumer’s identity in the course of a financial transaction or other transaction;
  • Health insurance policy number or health insurance subscriber identification number in combination with any other unique identifier that a health insurer uses to identify the resident; or
  • Any information about their medical history or mental or physical condition or about a health care professional’s medical diagnosis or treatment information.

Personal information also includes any of the data elements listed above, without the resident’s name, if the data elements, alone or in combination with others, would enable a person to commit identify theft against the resident.

However, the breach of a resident’s personal information does not, in and of itself, prompt the notification requirement. In Oregon, notification is not mandated if, after an appropriate investigation or consultation with law enforcement agencies, the company reasonably determines that the resident has not and is not likely to be harmed from the breach. Such determination must be documented in writing and maintained by the company for a minimum of 5 years.

If the company determines that the stolen data will harm or is likely to harm the resident, then the company must notify the resident “in the most expeditious manner possible, without unreasonable delay,” but no later than 45 days after discovering or receiving notification of the breach. Notification may only be delayed if the notice were to impede on a criminal investigation.

The notification, which must be made in writing, by phone or electronically, must include, at a minimum:

  • A description of the breach in general terms;
  • The approximate date of the breach;
  • The type of personal information that was subject to the breach;
  • The company’s contact information;
  • The contact information for national consumer reporting agencies; and
  • Advice to the consumer to report suspected identity theft to law enforcement, including the state Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission.

Moreover, if more than 250 residents are notified, the company will be required to submit, in writing or electronically, a copy of the notification to the Attorney General. If more than 1,000 residents are notified, then the company will also have to notify all nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies.

Data breach notification laws are demanding on hacked companies, but they are not the only laws with which these business entities must comply following a cyber attack. State and federal laws, including employment, medical, and financial laws, usually apply. In addition, states like Oregon impose pre-data breach measures, also known as information security standards—we will further cover this issue in our next post—on any company doing business in the state to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of personal information before a breach. (California just passed one such law, specifically targeted at marijuana businesses.)

Cannabis companies affected by a data breach should always consult with experienced cyber security attorneys to avoid any civil penalty, but also to retain public confidence and maintain their competitive edge in this high-risk cyber environment.

We recently wrote about the new Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) rules for marijuana businesses, and observed that those rules were issued with the stated intent to stave off diversion of cannabis. In addition to its public-facing actions, we have seen an apparent shift in internal OLCC review policies and procedures. A few weeks ago, we covered the apparent adoption of new settlement policies. Today, we cover what appears to be increased scrutiny for each of the following: new license applications (those submitted prior to June 15th), license renewal applications, change in business structure applications, and change-in-ownership applications. OLCC investigators are looking at all of these submissions more carefully than ever.

It was never easy to get an OLCC license. It only felt that way, given the stricter and more tedious requirements faced by cannabis program applicants in other states. In Oregon, the application process was somewhat cumbersome initially (remember the narrative-based forms, released in 2015?), but the state quickly progressed to “check the box” paperwork in combination with its online data entry system. Today, there are a few interesting quirks in that protocol, but it’s navigable and sensible and clean overall.

So what changed? Generally, the administrative environment is different these days. Licensing has existed for a couple of years, OLCC has refined its processes, and investigators are better trained than before. Specifically, investigators have raised the bar for the content of application submissions, and they are looking under rocks that previously would have been left unturned. In many cases, they are finding things.

OLCC marijuana cannabis license
OLCC investigators are taking a harder look.

Gone are the days when an applicant could submit a business document in the belief that, regardless of that document’s contents, the inspector would summarily tuck it into her file essentially unread, and pass the application along to “final review.” OLCC investigators are now actively requesting and reviewing legal documents, and doing a really good job of it. Here is a sampling of investigator questions we have seen in the past month or so, that never would have surfaced even a year ago:

  • “Does this lease’s rent reconciliation provision mean that the landlord is entitled to a percentage of profits? Explain that.”
  • “Was this asset purchase agreement ‘deposit’ escrowed? Or have these funds used in the business operations already?”
  • “Why does this business structure form contain an LLC member who is not listed on the state business registry?”
  • “At what point did the seller transfer these utility bills into the buyer’s name?”

Etcetera. We have seen businesses tripped up (badly) in the both the change-in-ownership and renewal processes by questions like these. In the worst case, these inquiries can result in proposed license cancellation and/or non-renewal by OLCC. Those situations can be incredibly frustrating and stressful for a business, especially one with sunk costs and accumulating obligations. They should be avoided if legitimately possible.

In all, the new licensing paradigm leaves us with a couple of key takeaways going forward. The first is really simple: Run your business like a real business and ensure you have everything in place prior to OLCC submission. This means writing things down, to start, and using appropriate forms to do so. The second takeaway is to enlist help when needed. That doesn’t mean you need to pay an attorney or a consultant thousands of dollars to process your application. In our Portland office, for example, we have experienced marijuana licensing paralegals who process OLCC applications literally all day every day, and who talk with OLCC investigators on the regular. Our cannabis business lawyers only enter the picture to draft documents, or deal with nuanced or delicate matters.

Going forward, we expect OLCC to continue to ratchet up standards for both applicants and licensees on everything from rulemaking to license review to site inspections. That’s a good thing for compliant operators and for businesses that want to do things correctly. Really, it’s exactly how it should be.

What’s in YOUR employee handbook?

Even if your company is fully compliant with all OLCC-mandated marijuana laws and regulations, you can still expose yourself to legal pitfalls if you aren’t just as strict keeping up with state and federal employment laws. While the rapid evolution of corporate cannabis is evident in the news alone, you may not realize that state employment laws are just as volatile — and there are a lot of them.

As a business owner, you should know how to navigate this multitude of regulations. We saw one company face the consequences of violating Oregon’s sick leave law earlier this year. OSHA could be just as serious if they find marijuana producers are not adhering to state agricultural safety standards. What can you expect with an employment audit? How does Oregon and Portland’s “ban-the-box” ordinance effect who and how you hire?

Harris Bricken employment lawyer Megan Vaniman will be leading a free presentation on employment law for cannabis businesses on October 11, 2018 from 4 to 5 PM PST, followed by a reception. OSHA and BOLI are the tip of the iceberg; Megan will dive deep into state and federal legislation that can prevent your business from succeeding if you don’t proceed with caution.

Both the event and reception will take place at Harris Bricken’s Portland office. Can’t be there in person? The content in this presentation will be recorded and distributed as a webinar at a later date. Further questions about the event can be sent to firm@harrisbricken.com.

RSVP for this event at our EventBrite today!

Want to study up before the event? In addition to the articles linked above, check out these past articles by Megan: