Date: June 10, 2026

By: Ty Hyderally, Esq., and Jamie Davila, Esq., and Aleisha Andino

With the ever changing landscape of the law, the New Jersey Appellate Division has decided to recognize a person’s right of action against an employer under New Jersey’s Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Modernization Act (CREAMMA).

The Appellate Court held that individuals who are denied employment or otherwise penalized due to lawful cannabis use outside of work have the right to bring a lawsuit against their employer under CREAMMA. Sanders v. Levari Grp., LLC, No. A-2715-23, 2026 N.J. Super. LEXIS 56, at *2 (Super. Ct. App. Div. May 26, 2026).

What happened?

Plaintiff, Darlene Sanders (“Plaintiff” or “Sanders”), applied for a customer service position in December 2022 with The Levari Group, LLC, (“Defendant” or “Levari Gorup”). After being offered the job, she underwent a pre-employment drug screening, which showed she had used cannabis within the past thirty days. Sanders explained that her use was recreational and lawful under New Jersey law, and that she was not under the influence at work or during the application process. The company then asked her to take a second drug test at her own expense. After Sanders did not test a second time due to low funds, the employer rescinded the offer. Id. at *9-10.

Sanders filed a lawsuit, arguing that CREAMMA prohibits employers from refusing to hire someone solely because they test positive for cannabis metabolites, along with common law claims. The trial court initially dismissed her claims, finding no private right of action under the statute. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that CREAMMA does, in fact, allow individuals to sue employers for discrimination based on lawful cannabis use. Id. at *11, 29.

Applying the Cort v. Ash framework, the court found that CREAMMA’s anti-discrimination provisions explicitly protect employees and applicants from adverse action based on lawful cannabis use. Id. at *14. While the statute does not expressly provide a private cause of action, it contains language that creates the rights, but it lacks any alternative enforcement mechanism. Id. at *15. Even though the statute does not give employees the right to use cannabis, it does state that “‘an employee shall not be subject to any adverse action by an employer solely due to the presence of cannabinoid metabolites’ from engaging in the lawful use of cannabis.” Id. at *22. The court found that, without a private right of action, the statute’s protections would be effectively meaningless and inconsistent with legislative intent. Id. at *27.

In short, the Appellate Division recognized that the legislature intended these protections to be enforceable and that enforcement must come from individuals themselves.

The court ultimately reinstated several of Sanders’ claims, including CREAMMA-based discrimination, negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of contract. Importantly, the court also clarified that these claims were dismissed prematurely at the trial court level. Id. at *34-35.

However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Sanders’ claim under Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., holding that wrongful discharge claims under Pierce do not extend to failure-to-hire situations. The Pierce doctrine, which “permits an employee to bring a cause of action “for wrongful discharge when the discharge is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy,” remains limited to existing employment relationships. Id. at *30-31.

Before this ruling, the only meaningful interpretation of CREAMMA came from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which was later affirmed by the Third Circuit. The Federal Courts’ interpretation of the statute was that it does not provide individuals with a private right of action. Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., Inc., 123 F.4th 128 (3d Cir. 2024). The Sanders v. Levari Grp., LLC decision changes the landscape entirely, creating a conflict between state and federal courts on how CREAMMA should be interpreted.

This divide mirrors the broader tension between state and federal law in the cannabis context. While New Jersey has legalized recreational marijuana and enacted protections for lawful users, cannabis remains illegal under federal law.

This decision is a major step forward for workplace rights in the state of New Jersey. Employees and job applicants who use cannabis lawfully now have clear legal recourse if they are denied employment or otherwise penalized solely because of a positive cannabis test. Employers must ensure their hiring and drug testing policies comply with CREAMMA and do not unlawfully discriminate against individuals who lawfully use cannabis outside of their employment.

If you believe you have been denied a job or otherwise discriminated against because of lawful cannabis use, or you feel that you are the target of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, or some other issue in the workplace, you may have a claim under New Jersey law.

Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years and is committed to protecting employees’ rights and can help you understand your options!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.