Erick Zanetich v. WalMart Stores East Inc
Precedential (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New Jersey's Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) does not imply a private right of action for job applicants who are not hired due to cannabis use. Under New Jersey's modified Cort v. Ash test, courts will not infer a private remedy where the statute does not confer a special benefit on a particular class, there is no legislative intent to create such a remedy, and doing so is inconsistent with the legislative scheme's purposes.
Facts:
- In 2021, New Jersey enacted the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), which prohibits employers from refusing to hire a job applicant for their use of cannabis.
- Walmart maintained a corporate policy under which job applicants who tested positive for drugs were ineligible for future employment.
- In January 2022, Erick Zanetich applied for an asset protection position at a Walmart facility in Swedesboro, New Jersey.
- Walmart offered Zanetich the job, contingent on him passing a mandatory drug test.
- Zanetich subsequently took the drug test and tested positive for cannabis.
- Following the positive test result, Walmart rescinded its offer of employment to Zanetich.
Procedural Posture:
- Erick Zanetich filed a two-count putative class-action complaint against Walmart in the Superior Court of Gloucester County, New Jersey, a state court of first instance.
- Walmart removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction.
- Walmart filed a motion to dismiss both counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The District Court granted Walmart's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Zanetich, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the District Court's final decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Jersey's Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) imply a private right of action for job applicants whose employment offers are rescinded due to a positive cannabis test?
Opinions:
Majority - Phipps
No. New Jersey's Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) does not imply a private right of action for job applicants whose employment offers are rescinded due to a positive cannabis test. To determine if a statute implies a private remedy, New Jersey courts apply a modified three-factor test from Cort v. Ash. First, CREAMMA does not confer a 'special benefit' on a particular class because its employment provision protects both users and non-users of cannabis, a group so broad it includes the entire public. Second, there is no evidence of legislative intent to create a private remedy; the legislature's silence on this matter, combined with its history of creating express remedies in other anti-discrimination statutes, suggests a deliberate choice not to provide one. Third, implying a remedy is not consistent with CREAMMA’s purposes of regulating cannabis like alcohol (which has no private employment remedy), preventing underage use, and eliminating the illegal market. The court also held that New Jersey's common law public policy exception to at-will employment (the 'Pierce claim') applies only to wrongful discharge of current employees, not to failure-to-hire claims from job applicants.
Dissenting in part - Freeman
Yes. The New Jersey Supreme Court would likely find that CREAMMA implies a private right of action. The majority misapplies the modified Cort test. First, the statute does confer a 'special benefit' on a distinct class: individuals who have been denied employment due to cannabis use, a group Zanetich clearly belongs to. Second, legislative intent is evidenced by the legislature's decision to expressly foreclose a private cause of action in a related marijuana law enacted on the same day, while remaining silent in CREAMMA; this implies a deliberate choice to permit one under CREAMMA. Furthermore, there is no other effective enforcement mechanism, as the Cannabis Regulatory Commission lacks jurisdiction over employers like Walmart. Third, allowing a private remedy is consistent with CREAMMA's purpose of creating a regulated legal cannabis market, as people will be discouraged from participating in the legal market if they can be denied employment without recourse. At a minimum, this novel and important question of state law should have been certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that while CREAMMA provides a statutory right against cannabis-based employment discrimination, it does not provide a corresponding private remedy for individuals to enforce that right in court. The ruling creates a significant enforcement gap, leaving aggrieved job applicants without direct legal recourse and dependent on potential administrative action by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. The case underscores the critical distinction between a right and a remedy, placing the burden on the New Jersey Legislature to amend the statute if it intends to allow private lawsuits. This will likely influence legislative drafting in other states legalizing cannabis to ensure employment protections are explicitly enforceable.
