The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (“CREAMMA”) does not permit a private citizen to bring a civil action for enforcement of the provisions prohibiting discrimination against cannabis users. Erick Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. et al., Docket No. 23-1996 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2024).

CREAMMA was passed to control and legalize cannabis in a similar fashion to the regulation of alcohol for adults, including preventing the sale or distribution of cannabis to people under the age of 21. The law also provides certain protections to current and prospective employees, including preventing employers from refusing to hire a job applicant because of the applicant’s use or non-use of cannabis, as well as from taking an adverse employment action against an employee based solely on a positive cannabis drug test. However, CREAMMA does not expressly allow citizens to bring a private cause of action, such as a civil action, to remedy alleged employment discrimination suffered because of an individual’s use of cannabis. This conclusion recently was challenged and the Third Circuit confirmed that CREAMMA does not confer a private right of action. 

Zanetich applied for an asset protection position at a Walmart facility in Swedesboro, New Jersey. Zanetich was offered the job, subject to taking and passing a drug test. After Zanetich tested positive for cannabis, the job offer was rescinded. He subsequently filed a two-count Complaint against Walmart alleging Walmart discriminated against him for his use of cannabis in violation of CREAMMA and that Walmart wrongfully rescinded his job offer in violation of public policy. Walmart removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. The District Court granted Walmart’s motion, with prejudice, dismissing the case and finding that CREAMMA does not contain an implied remedy for violations of its employment-related protections, nor does the public policy exception to the recission of a job offer based on a positive drug test for cannabis apply to Zanetich’s claims. As the case was dismissed with prejudice, Zanetich did not have the opportunity to cure any defects in the Complaint by filing an amended Complaint.

Zanetich appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss the Complaint.

There was no dispute CREAMMA does not expressly provide for a private right of action, and, the Third Circuit ultimately held that CREAMMA did not imply a private right of action either. Specifically, the Court held CREAMMA protects both cannabis and non-cannabis users and, therefore, Zanetich could not establish the statute provided him with any special benefit. The Court further noted that if the Legislature wanted to include a private right of action for citizens, it would have done so explicitly. Finally, the Third Circuit held the CREAMMA’s explicitly-stated underlying purposes concerned the use and distribution of cannabis, which does not support a private right of action to enforce the employment-related provisions. Therefore, the Court upheld the District Court’s dismissal of Zanetich’s first claim.

The Court also analyzed the applicability of Pierce v. Ortho Pharm. Corp, which creates an exception to the at-will employment doctrine for employees who were terminated in violation of public policy. Ultimately, the Third Circuit held this exception only applies to former employees terminated from their position because of their complaints about a suspected violation of a clear mandate of public policy. As Zanetich was not a former employee, but instead was a prospective applicant, the Third Circuit upheld the District Court’s dismissal of this claim as well.