Unprotected Workers: NJ Court Decision On Cannabis Use Impacting Jobs

❎ NJ forbids job discrimination based on weed use

❎ Court rules you cannot sue if you are denied a job for cannabis use

 ❎ Legislature blamed for poorly written laws

When New Jersey amended the state constitution to permit the adult recreational use of marijuana in 2021, lawmakers included provisions in enabling legislation designed to protect workers who use cannabis.

However, a panel of federal judges says the legislature botched the job and ultimately left workers unprotected.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on a lawsuit brought by New Jersey resident Erick Zanetich against Walmart.

Zanetich claims he was offered a job as a security guard at a Walmart facility in Swedesboro pending the results of a drug test.

When Zanetich tested positive for marijuana, he says the job offer was illegally withdrawn.

A lower court threw out the suit, and Zanetich's attorney appealed.

Court blames legislature

In a 2-1 split decision, the Court of Appeals agreed that the 2021 law legalizing adult use of cannabis for recreational purposes did include provisions to protect workers who use marijuana.

However, the court ruled lawmakers did not "provide a remedy for violating that statute's cannabis-related employment protections."

Judge Peter Phipps wrote in the majority opinion that at no time "has New Jersey created an express cause of action for employment discrimination based on cannabis use."

Phipps then blamed the legislature for failing to clarify and strengthen worker protections and suggested it was "a deliberate choice not to provide a remedy."

What does this mean?

Employers have long complained that the state has failed to clarify specific workplace rules for cannabis use.

Legal experts say this decision could further muddy the issue and nullify existing protections.

Employers may now feel free to take punitive action against employees or prospective hires that use marijuana recreationally on their own time.

The federal court could also send the matter to the New Jersey State Supreme Court for consideration. The dissenting judge in this case wrote in her opinion that she expected the New Jersey high court would ultimately rule on the issue.

Report a correction | Contact our newsroom