The Case at Hand
Plaintiff Erick Zanetich applied for a job at one of Defendant Walmart’s New Jersey locations. After interviewing for the position, Zanetich received a conditional job offer with a start date, subject to passing a drug test. After testing positive for cannabis, Walmart withdrew Zanetich’s conditional job offer. Subsequently, Zanetich filed suit in federal court asserting violations of CREAMMA.
In response, Walmart filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Judge O’Hearn’s opinion deciding the motion noted that CREAMMA does not explicitly provide for a private cause of action, nor does the statute create an implied private cause of action. In so finding, the Court relied on the lack of any explicit cause of action in the statute and the fact that the New Jersey Legislature created the CRC to handle all aspects of the enforcement of CREAMMA and the prosecution of any violations. In sum, the court found no evidence that an implied private right of action exists under CREAMMA due to the broad authority given to the CRC, as well as the legislative scheme and underlying purposes of law.
In other words… Judge O’Hearn found that only the CRC has the authority to enforce violations of CREAMMA and granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Impact of the Court’s Decision
The court recognized that its decision essentially rendered the employment protections passed under CREAMMA “meaningless.”