What Employers Should Know About Cannabis and the Workplace

October 14, 2024

A Regulatory Minefield

Marijuana, cannabis, weed, or whatever you want to call it is a growth industry. We know it’s still an illegal Schedule 1 drug under federal law; so how is it that we can grow, sell, or buy it in Massachusetts? And what effect does the regulatory minefield have on employers and the workplace?


Today’s article will explore the legal ins and outs of cannabis relative to Massachusetts workplaces. In addition, it will provide a brief overview of the current federal and state regulatory scheme.

 

Federal Stance and Future Legislation


Cannabis is still considered a Schedule 1 illicit substance under federal law. Most simply stated, this means that if one is found in possession of marijuana by a federal officer or border official, you’re in trouble. However, a growing number of states, like Massachusetts, have chosen to move forward and allow the sales and distribution of cannabis, either for medical or recreational use, within state borders. In fact, 24 states have legalized marijuana.


There have been several proposed bills in Congress to help move cannabis from its Schedule 1 classification (covering the most addictive and destructive substances, such as heroin) to Schedule 3 (defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical or psychological dependence, such as anabolic steroids). See, for example, the Marijuana 1 to 3 Act of 2023.


Other than the obvious relaxation of legal impediments to cannabis use, the proposed federal bills have some amazing tax benefits for the cannabis industry as a whole. For starters, IRS enforcement action would be one less problem to worry about. Currently, cannabis businesses do not enjoy the same tax deductions as the average mom-and-pop or Fortune 500 company. This is due to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which does not allow certain standard business deductions due to the legal risks associated with the illegal ‘trafficking’ of a Schedule 1 drug. Cannabis businesses also face higher income-tax rates as a result of their business. Most of the proposed federal laws would remove those tax obstacles and categorize cannabis as just another product sold by just another business.


Additionally, placing cannabis into a Schedule 3 classification would allow for this industry to become regulated like any other Schedule 3 drug provider. While striving for more federal regulations may sound counterintuitive for a business, the current patchwork quilt of state regulations has not served consumers well.


As noted recently in the Boston Globe, the quality of lab test results relative to marijuana mold contamination and THC levels has raised consumer concerns in Massachusetts and may have negative repercussions relative to state cannabis businesses. More specifically, state cannabis businesses have been accused of circumventing health regulations by ‘shopping’ for laboratories with loose (or non-existent) standards in order to obtain favorable testing scores.


A straightforward, no-nonsense standard for regulation and testing, like the one the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has for Schedule 3 drugs, would give consumers confidence that the products they are purchasing are both safe for consumption and contain the product described on the label.


There are other pending bills that would favorably affect the cannabis industry. One of the eagerly watched bills is the SAFE Banking Act, which was meant to make banking services accessible to state-regulated cannabis businesses without the fear of federal penalties. Specifically, its provisions would allow for the profit from a state-regulated cannabis business to be considered just that, and not proceeds from an unlawful activity.


The banking industry is traditionally quite conservative when it comes to risk taking in the area of emerging or ‘unlawful’ industries. Without such banking legislation, it remains very difficult, if not impossible, for state-regulated cannabis businesses to get routine business loans and/or building or mortgage commitments. Insurance companies, also conservative entities, have begun to craft specific policies for the cannabis industry; however, much of such coverage is prohibitively expensive.


The States Reform Act is a pending bipartisan effort to change cannabis regulation by creating a permitting process on the federal level for cannabis-based businesses. This would allow federal oversight on products that cross state lines, thus allowing lawful interstate commerce.


Under current law, the states and federal government disagree on the legality of cannabis use, thus making its transportation across state lines a legally precarious task. Such product movement currently requires ‘creative’ transportation routes. Typically, it’s the smaller companies who suffer and lose out on increasing their business if they lack the resources to come up with those creative solutions.


Cannabis and the Massachusetts Workplace


A big question that arises regarding cannabis in the workplace is “how is drug testing affected by employee use of medical and/or recreational cannabis?” It is important to note that, if you require your applicants or employees to be drug-tested, you should have a company-wide policy that details specific scenarios that would require drug testing. After that, enforcement becomes a management issue.


A rule of thumb to follow is that employers should generally require their employees to refrain from using alcohol and/or other drugs while on the clock. Reporting for work while intoxicated, or under the influence of mind-altering drugs, should also be addressed.


The follow-up question that is often asked is “what if an employee uses marijuana for a medical purpose?” Medicinal use of marijuana is a very real and effective remedy for several conditions and must be treated seriously in the workplace to avoid any violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.


It is not a business owner’s responsibility to probe every employee to see who has a disability and how they cope with it; they also are not required (as of yet) to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace. Employers are, however, required to have an interactive conversation with an employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is possible for an employee who uses medical marijuana to treat a disability.


Given the legal complexities, such situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and consulting with a business or employment lawyer well-versed in cannabis regulation is advisable.


The framework this act would establish would create federal regulations on interstate cannabis-based activities. The act would also impose a 3% federal cannabis excise-tax structure with a 10-year moratorium on increases to said tax. With the perennial federal budget shortages, this excise tax would be a welcome addition to the federal tax coffers.


Jason Ortiz and Elaine Reall are attorneys who specialize in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.


Jason Ortiz and Elaine Reall co-authored this article which was featured in Businesswest. Click here to visit their website. Reall was a featured panelist on a panel providing insights into the legal and regulatory status of the cannabis industry at the 2024 annual meeting of the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, which took place Sept. 15-18.

Starbucks Workers Sue Over Dress Code Expenses

September 25, 2025
Starbucks is facing a new wave of litigation, in this instance over its workplace dress code. Employees in California, Colorado, and Illinois allege that the Company’s updated policy forced them to purchase clothing items out-of-pocket without reimbursement, raising questions about employer obligations under state expense reimbursement laws. The Lawsuits On September 17, 2025, employees in Illinois and Colorado filed class-action lawsuits, while workers in California submitted complaints to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the Agency declines to act, those workers intend to pursue their own civil claims. The lawsuits are backed by the union organizing Starbucks workers, and plaintiffs argue that requiring employees to buy specific uniform items without full reimbursement violates the states’ statutes. Under laws in California, Colorado, and Illinois, employers must cover necessary business expenses, which can include uniforms or clothing mandated by a dress code. What the Dress Code Requires The revised policy, implemented in May 2025, requires employees to wear a solid black shirt (short or long sleeves, but not sleeveless or midriff-bearing) underneath their signature green apron. Pants must be khaki, black, or denim, and shoes must be in muted tones such as black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white. The policy also forbids “theatrical makeup” and visible face tattoos, prohibits nail polish and tongue piercings, and limits workers to one (1) facial piercing. In an effort to offset the change, Starbucks provided two shirts free of charge to each employee. Workers contend this was not enough, since multiple additional items were required to comply with the policy. Court documents show that some employees who failed to follow the dress code were subject to verbal warnings or sent home before starting their shifts. Worker Claims One plaintiff, Shay Mannik, a shift supervisor in Colorado, reported purchasing four black T-shirts, compliant shoes, and jeans to meet the dress code requirements. Despite these costs, Mannik claims they were never reimbursed. “It’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers already struggling with unpredictable hours and understaffed stores,” Mannik stated through attorneys. Starbucks’ Response Starbucks defended the policy as a way to “deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience to our customers and provide our partners with simpler and clearer dress code guidance.” The Company emphasized that it issued two free shirts to employees to prepare for the change. Key Considerations for Employers The Starbucks litigation underscores several important lessons for businesses:  Uniform Policies May Trigger Reimbursement Duties. Even when employers provide some clothing, state laws may still require reimbursement if employees must make additional purchases. State Laws Differ. California, Colorado, and Illinois all impose expense reimbursement obligations, but requirements vary, and enforcement can be aggressive. Here in Massachusetts, an employer does not need to pay for or reimburse an employee for general clothing, such as khakis, a black shirt, and black shoes, since these are ordinary items that can be worn outside of work. If the employer requires a specific style, brand, or logo (making the clothing a true uniform) then the employer must provide or reimburse for it and cover the cost of maintenance if special cleaning is needed. The only exception for ordinary clothing is if the cost would reduce the employee’s pay below minimum wage. Policy Rollouts Should Weigh Legal Risks. Employers introducing or revising appearance standards should carefully evaluate potential compliance costs, both financial and reputational. Takeaway The lawsuits against Starbucks will test the boundaries of state reimbursement laws and may influence how courts interpret employer obligations regarding dress codes. For companies, this case highlights the need to review policies proactively and ensure expense reimbursement practices comply with applicable state requirements. At The Royal Law Firm, we advise businesses on preventive compliance and represent employers when disputes arise. Our team’s focus on business defense ensures that policies are both operationally effective and legally sound. The Royal Law Firm LLP is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Recognized with the Chambers Spotlight Award

September 24, 2025
The Royal Law Firm is proud to announce that we have been ranked in the inaugural Chambers Spotlight Massachusetts Guide, which is a prestigious recognition from the internationally renowned legal research company Chambers and Partners! We are honored to be recognized for our exceptional expertise in Labor & Employment law. This ranking reflects our unwavering commitment to delivering top-tier legal counsel to businesses throughout the Commonwealth and beyond. Only 2% of attorneys are ranked by Chambers. The Royal Law Firm is the only Labor & Employment firm ranked in Springfield, MA. This award highlights small and mid-sized firms with a proven record of excellence and partner-level attention to client matters. Chambers Spotlight is a new guide designed to showcase the very best boutique and mid-sized firms across key U.S. legal markets, focusing on firms that combine regional insight, national impact, and client-focused service. About The Royal Law Firm The Royal Law Firm is a New England-based, women-owned law firm that exclusively represents businesses. Our attorneys are known for their aggressive litigation strategy, proactive employment law counseling, and commitment to understanding every client’s unique business model and goals. We are proud to be certified as a Women-Owned Business through state and national organizations including WBENC, NAMWOLF, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office. The Royal Law Firm was founded by Amy Royal in 2008 with a mission to promote diversity in the legal field, serve businesses exclusively, and give back to her hometown community. As a seasoned trial lawyer with over 25 years of civil litigation experience representing companies, Amy specializes in employer-side employment law, business tort defense, labor law, and corporate transactions. She has successfully defended clients in individual and class action cases involving wage and hour issues, discrimination, harassment, FMLA, OSHA, ERISA, and more. Amy also advises on union matters, HR policies, workplace investigations, and affirmative action compliance. Her commercial litigation work spans business torts, unfair competition, and contract disputes, while her transactional practice includes drafting employment agreements, vendor contracts, and regulatory compliance strategies. Our recognition in the Chambers Spotlight Guide reflects the dedication and excellence of our entire team. Thank you to our clients, peers, and community for your continued trust and support. We look forward to continuing to serve you with excellence.