227 A.3d 1206
N.J.2020Background:
- Wild began working for Carriage (funeral home) as a licensed funeral director in 2013.
- In 2015 Wild was diagnosed with cancer and his physician prescribed medical marijuana under New Jersey’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.
- In May 2016 Wild was in a vehicle accident; hospital staff concluded he was not impaired but employer required testing and informed Wild he was being terminated for drugs / failing to disclose medication.
- After his firing, rumors circulated that he was a "drug addict." Wild sued under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate.
- The trial court dismissed, the Appellate Division reversed (holding Wild pleaded viable LAD claims and the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) did not conflict with LAD), and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment.
- The Supreme Court added that while the CUA does not bar Wild’s LAD claim at the pleading stage, certain CUA provisions (no employer duty to accommodate medical marijuana in the workplace; prohibition on operating vehicles while under the influence) may affect LAD claims in some contexts.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Compassionate Use Act conflicts with or precludes LAD claims | CUA authorized off-site medical marijuana use; LAD still protects him from disability discrimination | CUA’s language ("nothing in this act shall be construed to require... an employer to accommodate") shows CUA intends no employment protections or effects | No conflict; plaintiff may pursue LAD claims. Court declined to adopt the absolute "no impact" view but recognized CUA can affect LAD claims in certain circumstances |
| Whether Wild sufficiently pleaded LAD discrimination / failure-to-accommodate (notice, disability, accommodation sought) | Alleged qualifying disability, prescribed medical marijuana, informed medical staff and employer, termination for drugs — adequate factual allegations | Argued Wild failed to plead employer awareness of disability or any requested accommodation | Pleadings were sufficient to survive a Rule 4:6-2 motion to dismiss; facts pled entitle plaintiff to reasonable inferences supporting LAD claims |
| Whether specific CUA provisions (no workplace accommodation; prohibition on vehicle operation while under influence) bar the LAD claim | Sought accommodation only for off-site / off-hours use, not workplace use | CUA exempts employers from accommodating medical marijuana in the workplace and forbids being under the influence while operating vehicles, which could defeat an LAD claim if implicated | Those CUA provisions may limit or shape LAD claims in certain factual settings, but they do not bar Wild’s claim at the pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (pleading standard for surviving a motion to dismiss)
- Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 2019) (Appellate Division opinion finding Wild pleaded viable LAD claims and that CUA does not conflict with LAD)