205 A.3d 1144
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Plaintiff, a licensed funeral director diagnosed with cancer, used physician‑prescribed medical marijuana under New Jersey’s Compassionate Use Act while receiving treatment.
- After a vehicle accident, plaintiff submitted to post‑incident testing; his employer, Carriage, terminated him citing drugs in his system and a policy requiring disclosure of medications that could affect job performance.
- Plaintiff sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) (disability and failure to accommodate), alleged aiding and abetting against individual supervisors, and pleaded defamation and intentional interference claims; the trial court dismissed the LAD and aiding/abetting claims with prejudice and the common‑law claims without prejudice.
- Defendants relied on N.J.S.A. 24:6I‑14 of the Compassionate Use Act, which states that nothing in the Act requires an employer to accommodate medical marijuana use, arguing that this bars LAD claims based on medical‑marijuana use.
- The Appellate Division reviewed the pleadings de novo under the Rule 4:6‑2 standard (Printing Mart), considered whether the second amended complaint pleaded a prima facie LAD claim, and whether the Compassionate Use Act preempted or insulated employers from LAD obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Compassionate Use Act bars LAD claims for employment actions related to medical‑marijuana use | The Act’s ‘‘nothing in this act’’ clause does not eliminate preexisting employment protections under the LAD; plaintiff’s termination for off‑duty, prescribed medical‑marijuana use is actionable under LAD | The Act’s provision that nothing requires an employer to accommodate medical marijuana means employers may terminate employees for medical‑marijuana use without LAD liability | The Court held the Act does not negate LAD rights; the ‘‘nothing in this act’’ clause neither creates nor destroys rights beyond the Act’s criminal/regulatory scope and does not immunize employers from LAD obligations. |
| Sufficiency of pleading: awareness of disability and request for accommodation | Plaintiff alleged facts from which awareness and requests for accommodation could be reasonably inferred (conversations with supervisors; employer communications) | Defendants contended the complaint lacked specific allegations that they knew of the disability or that plaintiff sought accommodation | The Court found the second amended complaint adequately pleaded awareness and that plaintiff sought accommodation (including off‑site/off‑hours use), so the LAD claims survive pleading review. |
| Aiding and abetting liability of individual supervisors | Aiding and abetting liability follows if an underlying LAD violation against employer is plausibly pleaded | Defendants argued aiding and abetting fails if there is no viable LAD claim | Because the Court reversed dismissal of the LAD claim, it also reversed dismissal of aiding and abetting claims and sent them back for further proceedings. |
| Dismissal of defamation and intentional interference claims | Plaintiff sought leave to amend; these claims were dismissed without prejudice | Defendants took appeal on finality grounds, but claims were not finally extinguished | The Court treated the "without prejudice" dismissals as permitting amendment, remanded for the trial court to set a deadline for any amended pleading, and expressed no view on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Printing Mart‑Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (establishes liberal standard for pleading and granting leave to amend)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (principle that unambiguous statutory text governs interpretation)
- Grande v. St. Clare's Health Sys., 230 N.J. 1 (framework for proving prima facie disability discrimination under the LAD)
- Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575 (articulates presumption and burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Viscik v. Fowler Equip. Co., 173 N.J. 1 (explains pretext and proof of discriminatory intent)
- Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1 (confirms appellate review standards for pleadings)
- Oasis Therapeutic Life Ctrs., Inc. v. Wade, 457 N.J. Super. 218 (noted for treating a single viable LAD claim as sufficient to proceed)