Join Now

Member Blog: Another Day, Another Lawsuit – Cannabis Companies Are Finding Out the Hard Way They Need EPLI

By Eric Rahn, Managing Director, S2S Insurance Specialists

Harassment, wrongful termination, race, gender and age discrimination, and hostile work environments are wreaking havoc on the cannabis industry, resulting in an upswing of recent lawsuits that are costing companies hundreds of thousands of dollars and causing harm to the workforce and brand damage that is – oftentimes – beyond repair. 

With the average claim costing small-to-mid-sized cannabis companies between $100,000 and $500,000, there needs to be more of a focus on creating a workplace environment free from harassment, discrimination, and bias. Furthermore, cannabis businesses need to be proactive in having the proper insurance policies in place.

You may make a mistake and be exposed to liability. You may do everything right, yet still be sued. Employer’s Protection Liability Insurance (EPLI) is key to protecting your business from employee-related risks and detrimental lawsuits.

What is EPLI and What Does it Cover?

EPLI is a type of management liability insurance that helps safeguard businesses against employee claims alleging inappropriate or unfair treatment. Former, current, and potential employees who believe the company has violated their legal rights can file lawsuits for a variety of reasons. The most frequent types of claims covered under EPLI include sexual harassment, discrimination, and wrongful termination/retaliation. However, EPLI can also cover a broader array of employment issues, such as breach of an employment contract, negligent evaluation, failure to employ or promote, wrongful discipline, deprivation of a career opportunity, wrongful infliction of emotional distress, defamation, invasion of privacy and mismanagement of employee benefit plans.

While policies vary, EPLI generally covers settlement, judgment, legal costs, fines and penalties. EPLI also protects a company’s directors and officers, management, and other employees from being held personally liable in a lawsuit. 

Common Scenarios Resulting in Recent Lawsuits:

Sexual Harassment. According to the 2020 report, Prospects and Pitfalls: Confronting Sexual Harassment in the Legal Cannabis Industry, “sexual discrimination and harassment plague the legal cannabis industry. Moreover, the industry’s past illicit nature threatens to perpetuate employer misconduct.”

Over the past few years, there has been a surge in sexual harassment claims in the cannabis industry. One such suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleged that a general manager at a medical marijuana dispensary in Maryland engaged in “unwelcome touching,” made “highly offensive sexual comments to and about staff and customers,” and “showed an employee a nude picture on his phone.” Although employees complained for months about the harassment, the company did not investigate until after it learned a complaint had been filed with the EEOC. The courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the dispensary and its parent company were remanded to pay $175,000 to settle the suit.

The cannabis industry is plagued by many of the same gender issues as other mainstream industries. In a study conducted by WeedMaps, 53% of women in the cannabis industry have experienced workplace harassment with 46% reported feeling sexually harassed. However, it’s not just women and lower-level employees making claims. Last February, a large publicly traded California cannabis flower distributor came under fire when its former Chief Revenue Officer – a male – accused the company of fostering a culture of sexual harassment and coverup. In the official complaint, the executive said he was subject “to severe and pervasive sexual harassment, both hostile work environment and quid pro quo, as a result of unwanted sexual advances and other discriminatory conduct.” The pending court case seeks an unspecified amount of damages from the company and also names three of its related companies liable. 

Discrimination. Title VII is the Federal Civil Rights Law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. For women, the cannabis industry remains a harassment-filled boys club. The latest in the battle to fight misogyny in the cannabis growing and retail industry, is a lawsuit filed by two workers at cannabis-growing companies in California who claim they were “wrongly fired after protesting workplace conditions and gender bias, including prohibitions on women working in growing rooms and pregnant women working at the companies.” The complaint also alleges that the companies conducted “a sham investigation of their complaints of bias, to further create pretense for firing them.” The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other penalties against the companies.  

Wrongful Termination/Retaliation. According to the EEOC, this is the most common claim brought against employers. The latest case to make headlines was filed in June 2022 by a former employee of a Chicago-based health center who claims she was fired under the pretense that she had bullied a coworker, but in reality she was terminated because she had reported her supervisor’s unwelcome behavior. In the suit, she alleges “violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, and asked the court for damages for emotional distress, humiliation and her loss of employment, as well as punitive damages.”

EPLI – Is it Worth It? Critical Points to Consider:

Navigating employee-related issues can be tricky business. Cannabis companies that land in legal hot water are often more focused on boosting profits and growing their business rather than implementing HR policies and ensuring they have the proper insurances in place to protect themselves against legal claims. The dozens of companies over the years that were embroiled in legal litigation and did not have EPLI learned the hard way that they are solely responsible for paying significant defense fees, compensatory and punitive damages, fines and penalties. 

When considering an EPLI, it is critical to negotiate policy limits, selection of counsel and defense limits, when you are first obtaining EPLI insurance or when you are renewing your policy. A qualified cannabis insurance broker can walk you through all the options and guide you on the policy that best meets your needs and budget.

While EPLI can be offered as a stand-alone policy, it is typically more affordable to combine EPLI with an existing policy, such as Directors & Officers Liability (D&O). Certain policies automatically include sexual harassment, but others do not, or you may be required to get a special endorsement for sexual harassment. Keep in mind that coverage is specific and EPLI cost is based on the business type, employee numbers and past lawsuits associated with the organization. Your broker should do the leg work for you and present coverage options and cost comparisons, so management can make an informed decision.

In Summary

Prevention is the cornerstone of reducing the risk of employee-related lawsuits. However, even if you develop and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, discrimination, and other harmful issues, and take immediate and appropriate action when a complaint is made, claims can and will happen. 

As you hire more employees, your risk of discrimination and sexual harassment increases. An EPLI policy can help your legal defense and settlement of such claims. In today’s climate, business owners and managers need to be proactive and understand the risk management tools and options available to them to protect their business. 


Eric Rahn, Managing Director of S2S Insurance Specialists, is a highly specialized insurance broker and risk management professional with over 30 years of experience providing C-Suite executives strategies and solutions that protect and safeguard their businesses.

Eric has held several executive positions in the maritime and casino/gaming industries, including CEO of the largest privately own casino concessions company operating on cruise ships around the world. He transitioned his knowledge of corporate business practices in highly regulated industries into the burgeoning cannabis space, establishing S2S Insurance Specialists in 2017.

Eric has served on the National Cannabis Industry Association’s (NCIA) Risk Management Insurance Committee since 2016. He is also a national speaker on cannabis insurance and author of NCIA’s Risk Management and Insurance’s “Introduction into Cannabis Insurance.”

 

 

 

 

Senate Confirmation Hearings: Cannabis Edition

by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations

Photo By CannabisCamera.com

You may have seen this week that there were a number of Senate confirmation hearings, and cannabis was a topic of discussion in some! But what are confirmation hearings, and what happened in them this week?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution is the Appointments Clause, which empowers the President to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint public officials. In layman’s terms, advice and consent essentially means confirmation. 

As of publication, cannabis was brought up before two nominees this week: Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland, and Deputy Secretary of Treasury nominee, Adewale Adeyamo.

On Monday, President Biden’s nominee for Attorney General, Merrick Garland, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before this, Garland’s position on cannabis was relatively unknown — he had ruled in a 2012 federal lawsuit case over DEA’s denial of a marijuana rescheduling petition and was one of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel that upheld the denial. 

However, Garland’s position on cannabis became more clear this week — at least in how he views the Department of Justice’s role in enforcement and arrest disparities. While before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Garland was asked about marijuana arrest disparities by notorious cannabis champion Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Sen. Booker asked:

“One big thing driving arrests in our country is marijuana arrests. We had in 2019 more marijuana arrests for possession then all violent crime arrests combined. When you break out that data and segregate along racial lines it’s shocking that an African-American has no difference in usage or selling than someone who is white in America, but their likelihood of being arrested for doing things that two of the last four presidents admitted to doing is three to four times higher than somebody white. Is that evidence that within the system there is implicit racial bias, yes or no?”

Garland responded: “It is definitely evidence of disparate treatment within the system, which I think does arise out of implicit bias. Unconscious bias may be, sometimes conscious bias.”

As Sen. Booker continued to question Garland about bias in the criminal justice system, Garland proactively brought marijuana back up, saying:

“The marijuana example is a perfect example. Here is a nonviolent crime that does not require us to incarcerate people and we are incarcerating at significantly different rates in different communities. That is wrong and it’s the kind of problem that will then follow a person for the rest of their lives. It will make it impossible to get for — to get a job and will lead to a downward economic spiral.”

Garland later continued:

“We can focus our attention on violent crimes and other crimes that put great danger in our society and not allocate our resources to something like marijuana possession. We can look at our charging policies and stop charging the highest possible offense with the highest possible sentence.”

But that wasn’t the only time the likely-soon-to-be Attorney General talked about cannabis. Freshman Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) asked Garland about equal justice, and highlighted the fact that “Black Americans continue to endure profiling, harassment, brutality, discrimination in policing and prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration.” While responding as to how his Justice Department would combat this, Garland said:

“One important way I think is to focus on the crimes that really matter, to bring our charging and arresting on violent crime and others that deeply affect our society. And not have such an overemphasis on marijuana possession, for example, which has disproportionately affected communities of color and damaged them far after the original arrest because of the inability to get jobs.”

During the “lightning round” of questions, Sen. Booker brought cannabis up again — this time, about enforcement and the now-rescinded Cole Memo. The Senator asked Garland, “Do you think the guidance in the Cole Memorandum should be reinstated, that the Justice Department respects states’ decisions?” Garland responded:

“I do remember it and I have read it. This is the question or prioritization about resources and prosecutorial discretion. It does not seem to me a useful use of limited resources that we have to be pursuing prosecutions in states that have legalized and are regulating the use of marijuana either medically or otherwise. I don’t think that is a useful use.”

This was, without a doubt, the most “cannabis positive” response from an Attorney General nominee in history! But the Judiciary Committee wasn’t the only one curious about cannabis this week!

Next, we move to the Senate Finance Committee, where Deputy Secretary of the Treasury nominee Adewale Adeyamo was being questioned Tuesday. During this hearing, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) asked, “Do you believe Treasury should seek to update FinCEN’s 2014 guidance on the Bank Secrecy Act’s expectations for financial institutions that provide services to cannabis related industries, and if so, what changes do you recommend?” Adeyamo responded:

“Senator, I look forward, if confirmed, to talking to my colleagues at Treasury about this important issue and thinking through what changes may be needed and doing this in a way that’s consistent with the agency and the President’s guidance. In doing that I look forward to consulting with you and members of this Committee on our path forward.”


To be blunt, this is a really big deal! These questions show that the upper chamber of Congress is taking cannabis policy seriously, and expects the topic to be taken up by various agencies over the next four years. You can continue to count on the NCIA team to
keep you updated, advocate on your behalf, and work with Congress and the Biden Administration to create a flourishing, responsible, diverse, and equitable cannabis industry. 

 

This site uses cookies. By using this site or closing this notice, you agree to the use of cookies and our privacy policy.