Missouri’s New Marijuana Amendment: Workplace Testing and Employees “Under the Influence”

Ruth Binger

By Ruth Binger



marijuanaMissouri’s newly approved constitutional Amendment 3 regarding marijuana use will go into effect on December 8, 2022.  With a total of 49 pages, the Amendment 3 has two sections: revised Section 1 (former Amendment 2), which focuses on medicinal use, and Section 2, which focuses on marijuana recreational use.

Employers have long had Drug-Free Workplace policies that test employees for various illegal drugs.  Common tests are pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion, and fitness for duty/return to work/follow up after rehab or last chance.

The original Amendment 2 regarding medicinal use was passed in 2018.  Employers responded to this amendment in several ways including choosing to keep their policies the same but providing reasonable accommodation under the disability statutes or to simply quit testing for THC altogether except for reasonable suspicion.

Now, employers will have to go back to the drawing board.

Section 1: Medicinal Use of Marijuana

Section 1 of Amendment 3 revises the original Amendment 2 in its entirety. One of the revisions/additions includes adding a nondiscrimination in employment section. It prohibits employers from discriminating against “medicinal cardholders” based on off-duty use unless the person was “under the influence of medical marijuana” at or during work. Further, it specifically prevents employers from relying solely on a positive THC test result to terminate a medicinal cardholder unless the person used, possessed, or was “under the influence” of medical marijuana at or during work.

There are exceptions to the “under the influence test” for medicinal cards for the following situations:

  1. If the employer would lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law,
  2. If the employee has a job where “legal use of a lawful marijuana product affects in any manner a person’s ability to perform job-related employment responsibilities, or
  3. If it conflicts with a bona fide occupational qualification that is reasonably related to a person’s employment.

This exception protection does not appear to apply to “recreational” users who do not have a “medicinal card.”

There is no readily available test to scientifically confirm whether someone is “under the influence of marijuana” nor what the threshold of impairment is under BAC for alcohol. How long a person will test for marijuana depends on a multitude of factors but is not limited to: Continue reading »

Updated EEO “Know Your Rights” Poster Now Available

David R. Bohm

By David R. Bohm



eeo posterOn October 22, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an updated EEO poster, a copy of which is attached to this blog post. This is to replace a previous EEO poster and addendum issued by the EEOC in 2019.

In many cases, employers have posted what is known as a 6-way poster, which sets forth an employee’s rights under various federal laws, including Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. You may wish to acquire an updated 6-way poster, or you can simply post the October 2022 poster next to the 6-way poster, or over the section on Equal Employment Opportunity on existing 6-way posters.

Who is Required to Post this Notice?

Any employer with more than 15 employees is required to post the updated notice.

When Should I Put This Up? Continue reading »

Should Your Contracts Anticipate Another Pandemic?

Jeffrey R. Schmitt

By Jeffrey R. Schmitt



force majeureThe widespread impact of the COVID-19 pandemic caused many businesses to evaluate whether they are obligated to perform under certain contracts, or whether they can invoke unique contract provisions to excuse a possible or likely failure to perform. While no business wants to consider a downturn due to another worldwide health or other catastrophe, the last several years have made clear it could happen, and there are ways to minimize losses.

Specifically, a “force majeure” clause is a contract provision that excuses a party’s performance of its obligations under the contract when certain circumstances arise beyond the party’s control, and making performance inadvisable, commercially impracticable, illegal, or impossible. These clauses vary in language and length, but many clauses include events like fire, war, unrest, epidemic or pandemic, famine, or otherwise “acts of God.”

There are examples of businesses seeking to excuse or delay performance due to COVID-19.  One such case was Pacific Collective, LLC v. ExxonMobil, in California, in which a developer asked the court to prevent ExxonMobil from selling a property to other buyers, claiming that California’s lockdown during the pandemic was an act of God that prevented the developer from completing the multi-million-dollar property acquisition. Continue reading »

Your Business Needs an Estate Plan, Too

Michael J. McKitrick

By Michael J. McKitrick



are you readyYes, small businesses need estate plans. Business estate plans determine what happens if the owner can no longer operate the business due to death or disability. A plan must be in place to address either potentially devastating situation.

Businesses with multiple owners commonly use Buy/Sell Agreements for such a plan. These provisions can be inserted into the Operating Agreement if the business is a limited liability Company (LLC) or can be provided in a separate agreement if the business is a corporation or partnership. There are two general forms used:

  • Buy/Sell Provisions: Remaining owners (whether shareholders, members, or partners) buy the deceased owner’s interest from the estate. A life insurance policy can provide funds for the purchase.
  • Redemption Agreement: The company buys the deceased owner’s interests from the estate. The remaining owners own the company. Proceeds from the sale go to the estate. This arrangement can also be funded by a life insurance policy.

Because of the tax and legal considerations involved, it is critical that these plans be thought out and planned in advance with the advice and input of the business’ attorney, accountant, and insurance professional.

If no agreement exists, the remaining owners must deal with the deceased owner’s estate, possibly controlled by the spouse, children, or other persons not involved in the business. This can be very disruptive. The business may have to be sold or liquidated to the detriment to all concerned. The value of the business is not passed on to the estate. The remaining owners must deal with a hostile party and potential litigation which could destroy the business.

The loss of an owner can also cause a vacuum in the management of the company. Continue reading »

Missouri Employers and Abortions as Healthcare: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Ruth Binger

By Ruth Binger



Authored by Ruth Binger with assistance from Sarah L. Ayers, contributor

supreme courtThe recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization triggered a ban on abortion in Missouri and several states. In 2019, Missouri passed the “The Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act,” an anti-abortion bill which included a trigger ban on abortions. In the event Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, the Governor or Attorney General was to issue a statement implementing the ban. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt issued a statement proclaiming the trigger law in effect as of Friday, June 24, 2022, at 9 a.m. following the Dobbs decision.

A variety of new legal questions related to abortion and healthcare have arisen since the decision was announced and states, such as Missouri, have enacted trigger bans. One example of the confusion involves life-saving abortions in cases of a medical emergency. Under a new regulation issued by the Biden administration, a life-saving abortion in cases of a medical emergency is a federally protected procedure. Leaders in several states have challenged the regulation.

Another issue lies with pre-Roe bans in states which outlaw abortion and whose legality today is still questionable even with the reversal of Roe. Many states with pre-Roe bans are in the process of putting updated laws on the books that either re-affirm restricting abortion or protect abortion. Kansas voters recently rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment stating there is no right to abortion within the state. Other questions raised include: How will the laws be enforced? Who can be charged with conspiracy in states under a ban (such as Missouri)? Can a state with an abortion ban exclude a fetus from being considered a person in other areas of the law? Continue reading »

Sexual Harassment Policies for the Trucking Industry: Best Practices

Katherine M. Flett

By Katherine M. Flett



truckingThe current over-the-road driver shortage has created increasing pressures for trucking companies of all sizes. As a result, some trucking companies may be reluctant to terminate – or to not hire – drivers who have been accused of sexual harassment. But this reluctance may not be a good idea in light of Title VII.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation against any employee who complains of sexual harassment to an employer. In addition, Title VII complaints can be filed in any judicial district where: the harassment was alleged to have been committed; the employment records relevant to the harassment claim are maintained and administered; the complainant worked; or if the employer cannot be “found” in one of the first three districts, the complaint can be filed in the district of the employer’s principal place of business.

Continue reading »

Securities Law in Crypto: It’s Everywhere! It’s Everywhere!

Joseph R. Soraghan

By Joseph R. Soraghan



cryptocurrencySuppose you have become a believer in crypto, crypto currencies, blockchain technology and crypto concepts such as non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). You believe that crypto-based assets (existing now and probably soon to be invented) present opportunities for profitable new businesses. But what do these opportunities look like under the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) laws?

Opportunity #1: Sell some of your NFTs and manage them for the new owners.

You decide to sell some of your assets to friends and others who are not as knowledgeable in crypto and offer to manage those NFTs for your purchasers.

But your reading of crypto literature has turned up concerning mentions by the SEC that cryptocurrency and crypto-assets are “securities,” like stocks and bonds, and are – or will be – regulated by the securities laws. And some state securities commissions are also making similarly uncertain statements.

Your further research shows that the statutes and the courts define a “security” to be any interest, contract, or transaction involving:

  • An investment of money or valuable property,
  • In a common enterprise,
  • With the expectation that profits will be derived from the efforts of the promoter/seller of the interest or a third party(s).

I.e., the Howey test, named after the Supreme Court case of SEC v. Howey.

The dominant factor in this definition is that of profits expected to be generated by the efforts of persons other than the purchaser/holder of the interest. You realize that your offer to manage the NFTs calls for your efforts to generate profits and may call the Howey definition into play. (We will perhaps discuss the equally uncertain concept of “common enterprise” in a later discussion.)

Opportunity #2: Manage a pool of NFTs. Continue reading »

Clicking Towards Disaster: The Cost of ADA Non-Compliant Websites

Lauren L. Wood

By Lauren L. Wood



website accessibilityIn today’s world, businesses increasingly rely on the internet, making websites invaluable tools for reaching and expanding a customer base. If you have an interactive website on which you conduct transactions with consumers, it must be accessible by anyone, including those with a hearing or vision impairment. A website that doesn’t adequately support the user experience (“UX”) for those with such impairments creates obstacles to its use and creates potential liability.

Unfortunately, the first notice a company receives about website accessibility issues may come via a lawsuit. Often filed in Federal Courts of states other than the company’s home state (New York and California being the most common), complaints alleging a company’s website is inaccessible or unusable by someone with a particular disability are proliferating. Discrimination in public accommodations is prohibited under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Federal Courts are split on whether stand-alone websites (i.e., where the owner of the website does not operate a store, restaurant, hotel, or other physical location) are places of public accommodation to which Title III’s accessibility standards apply.

Most companies would appreciate being notified of website deficiencies preventing a user from utilizing their site and be given the opportunity to correct any accessibility issues. Once a lawsuit is filed, it may be too late to prevent lengthy, expensive litigation over the issue, short of settling. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief plus attorney’s fees, which may skyrocket if the case is not settled expeditiously. They often also seek compensatory damage awards with state anti-discrimination claims. While these lawsuits are multiplying, the law in this area is still developing , leading to difficulties obtaining a swift resolution as the interpretation of the law evolves, and often splits, among circuits.

Most of these lawsuits are filed by a handful of plaintiffs represented by a handful of law firms alleging that a website does not comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). While the exact criteria required to avoid running afoul of the ADA has not been determined, the WCAG addresses accessibility issues such as contrast for those with difficulties differentiating colors, subtitles, or compatibility with screen reader software for those with vision impairment.

So, what should you do? Continue reading »

Do You Own Cryptocurrency? Update Your Estate Plan!

Rachel A. Quinley

By Rachel A. Quinley



cryptocurrencyCryptocurrency is a hot topic for business owners and individuals alike. But have you considered the importance of updating your estate plan to include your cryptocurrency? If not, read If You Own Cryptocurrency, It’s Time to Update Your Estate Plan! where I discuss the importance of updating your estate plan if you own any cryptocurrency or other digital assets.

Cryptocurrency and other digital assets were not considered in many older estate plans. And with the increase in the number of business owners and individuals acquiring cryptocurrency and other digital assets, estate planning is crucial. Your estate plan documents need to include language that covers your digital assets, just as it covers your more traditional assets. Continue reading »

Happy 6th Anniversary, GDPR!

Corporate Law Practice Group

By Corporate Law Practice Group



gdprAs a business owner, you’ve heard a lot about the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). April 16, 2022, marks the six year anniversary of its enactment. It has become a model for data privacy laws around the globe.

GDPR applies to any entity anywhere that processes personal data of individuals located in the European Economic Area (EEA). Non-European companies, including those in the U.S., must also comply with its stringent requirements.

By contrast, the U.S. has no national data privacy statute. Data privacy in the U.S. is governed by a patchwork of federal statutes and regulations (e.g.,  HIPAA) and state laws (e.g., the California Consumer Privacy Act). Additionally, every state has its own data breach notification law. The result is that when a business with customers in the U.S. experiences a data breach, it has to determine its obligations in multiple jurisdictions. An online retailer has to identify its obligations under the myriad laws of all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Different states’ data breach notifications laws contain similar features, but there are numerous variations. Common requirements include notifications to affected individuals, state attorney general offices, and credit reporting agencies. However, the timing, content, and method of these notifications varies from state to state. Some states, including Missouri, require notice to affected individuals “as expeditiously as possible.” Other states set a hard deadline, such as Alabama’s 45-day rule. Indiana allows business to notify their customers via email; Illinois does not (without prior customer consent). North Carolina requires notice to the Attorney General’s Office if a breach affects even one person, but Arizona only requires notification if at least 1,000 Arizonans are affected.

Even the definitions of “personally identifiable information” and “breach” are not universal. To make things more difficult, states frequently update their statutes. In 2021 alone, at least 22 states introduced or considered measures to amend existing security breach laws. Continue reading »

Skip to content