Justices to Hear Case on Workplace Implications of Medical Marijuana
The case raises the issue of whether an employer is required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana as allowed under the state's Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.
July 16, 2019 at 03:04 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New Jersey Law Journal
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a company's failure to accommodate an employee's medical marijuana usage provides the basis for a discrimination claim.
The court said Tuesday it will hear Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, in which a funeral director was fired after his employer discovered he was using medical marijuana as part of his cancer treatment. The case raises the issue of whether an employer is required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana as allowed under the state's Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.
In the case before the court, plaintiff Justin Wild claimed he was discriminated against for using medical marijuana as part of his medical treatment.
After he was involved in a minor car crash in 2016 during the course of his employment, Wild was taken to an emergency room, where he told hospital staff he was using medical marijuana. Wild was not at fault for the crash.
His employer learned of his marijuana usage because it was considered work-related. After he was ordered to take a drug test, Wild was fired for violating a company policy requiring employees to tell their supervisor if they are using any medication that may impact their ability to safely perform their duties.
Wild claimed in a suit that he was unlawfully discriminated against for using medical marijuana as permitted by the Compassionate Use Act. But a trial judge held that the suit could not go forward because the Compassionate Use Act does not require an employer to accommodate medical marijuana.
Wild appealed, and the panel of Judges Clarkson Fisher Jr., Richard Hoffman and Karen Suter disagreed. "Because the Compassionate Use Act declared it should not be construed to 'require' an accommodation does not mean such a requirement might be imposed by other legislation," the Appellate Division said when it reversed dismissal of the case.
"It would be ironic indeed if the Compassionate Use Act limited the Law Against Discrimination to permit an employer's termination of a cancer patient's employment by discriminating without compassion," Fisher wrote for the panel.
Courts have generally been unfriendly to the employment rights of medical marijuana users. In once such case, a federal judge in Camden ruled that an employer was not required to accommodate forklift operator Daniel Cotto Jr.'s medical marijuana use by waiving the employee's positive drug test, despite the employee's possession of a doctor's note stating that he could operate machinery while using his prescription.
Jamison Mark of The Mark Law Firm in Basking Ridge, who represents Wild, and Steven Luckner of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Morristown, who represents the funeral home, did not respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSouth Carolina Physicians Challenge Abortion Ban Under Religious Freedom Claims
7th Circ. Revives Transactional Dispute Against Military Retailer, Sends to State Court
4 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250