Signed into law on December 31, 2012, the Iran Economic Sanctions Act , Public Act 517 of 2012, MCL 129.311, et seq., is only couple pages long and, at least on its face, is simple enough to interpret as a preventive measure in assuring that public entities are not engaged in businesses with persons or financial institutions that are tied to the Iranian energy sector. Beginning April 1, 2013, public entities accepting bids for requests for proposals (RFPs) are required to certify that bidders are not “Iran linked businesses”. The Act defines an “Iran linked business” as a person engaging in investment activities in the energy sector of Iran or a financial institution that extends credit to another person, if that person will use the credit to engage in investment activities in the energy sector of Iran. The “investment activity” is then defined as investments or credits (of 45 days or more) of 20 million US Dollars or more.

If a certification by a bidder is later found to be false, the bidder not only may lose all existing contracts with the public entity, but must be reported to the Attorney General who may bring a civil action demanding not more than $250,000.00 or 2 times the amount of the contract, the cost of reasonable attorney fees and the public entity’s investigation.

As simple as the Act appears, it actually results in a huge burden on financial institutions to investigate where the funds they will loan will be invested. Short of continuous monitoring of its loans, extending a certification based on the current knowledge of the financial institution may not protect it from the acts of its debtors.

Starting April 1, the State of Michigan or an agency or authority of the state, school district, community college district, intermediate school district, city, village, township, county, public authorities, or public airport authorities are required to seek these certifications from bidders on RFPs. Whereas public authority is not defined within the Act, it is likely that the Act would be held to be applicable to both Drainage Districts and Transportation Authorities. Hubbard attorneys This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ”="mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ”"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it can be reached at (517) 886-7176 for comments and questions.

City of Royal Oak joined 21 other Michigan communities by its adoption of a human rights ordinance disallowing discrimination based on 16 factors including sexual orientation, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy and HIV status. Violations will be a civil infraction punishable by a fine up to $500.00. The ordinance will take effect on March 14, 2013.

In a recently released Opinion and Order, 30th Circuit Court Judge William E. Collette addressed the reach of Casias v WalMart’s ruling excluding private employers from Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act’s prohibitory rules.

In Casias medical marihuana users were held to have no expectancy of job protection in a private employment setting. In the Ingham County case Kemp v Hayes Green Beach Memorial Hospital, a former radiology technologist was fired for testing positive in a drug test ordered after a patient overheard her comments about being a registered MMMA patient. Kemp informed her employer that she would test positive as she was indeed an MMMA patient who ingested marijuana. The hospital terminated her employment after test results showed traces of “11-carboxy-THC.” Kemp applied for unemployment benefits. After an initial determination of disqualification, Kemp filed for redetermination and was qualified for the benefits based on the fact that she was a registered MMMA card holder and was prescribed medical marijuana. Appeals by the employer to an administrative law judge and then to the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission denied Kemp unemployment benefits based solely on Casias. Kemp appealed the decision to the circuit court.

Judge Collette’s final opinion differentiates Casias from Kemp by finding the former was a wrongful termination action against a private employer whereas the latter sought unemployment benefits provided for by state laws enforced and interpreted by a state agency. Hence, Judge Collette concluded that the “conditions for disqualification from unemployment benefits are state action that are subject to the protections of the MMMA.” The Opinion and Order further goes on to observe based on recent case law, that “11-carboxy-THC” is neither a schedule 1 controlled substance under Michigan law and its presence did nothing to show that Kemp used medical marijuana in a manner inconsistent with the MMMA. Kemp’s unemployment benefits were reinstated.

The Supreme Court’s February 8, 2013 decision in the State of Michigan v McQueen , popularly known as the Isabella Dispensary case will have ramifications that are greater than initially anticipated. The 4-1 majority opinion disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation regarding the reach of “medical use” as that term appears in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Stating that the transfer of medical marihuana inherently included the act of sales, the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals’ findings to the contrary. However, the Supreme Court Justices further found that the Act’s Section 4 immunities were only available for qualifying patients who were alleviating their own debilitating conditions. The opinion is unequivocal : “Section 4 does not authorize a registered qualifying patient to transfer marijuana to another registered qualifying patient.” Therefore, even though the Court of Appeals’ August 2011 decision was for the wrong reasons, it reached the correct result in finding the defendant McQueen’s dispensary operation a public nuisance.

The McQueen opinion immediately negates the most recent opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals’ January 29, 2013 decision in People v Green which had approved a transfer of medical marijuana between two qualifying patients where there is no exchange of money or other compensation. An appeal of that decision by the State of Michigan is expectedly imminent.

Justice Cavanagh authored the only dissent in the case, and newly elected Justice McCormack took no part in the decision.