Summary
This Third Circuit opinion reviews a district court's dismissal of a putative class-action lawsuit brought by a job applicant whose offer was rescinded after testing positive for cannabis. The court analyzes whether New Jersey's Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) implies a private remedy for pre-employment discrimination and whether a public policy exception to at-will employment applies. Applying New Jersey's modified Cort test for implying private rights of action, the court affirms the dismissal, holding that CREAMMA does not create an implied private cause of action for job applicants. The court also declines to certify the unresolved state-law questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether CREAMMA implies a private cause of action for a job applicant whose conditional offer was rescinded because of a positive cannabis test.
- Whether New Jersey's common-law public-policy exception to at-will employment extends to a failure-to-hire claim by a prospective employee.
- Whether the District Court was required to allow a curative amendment because the action involved asserted civil rights under New Jersey law.
- Whether the state-law questions should be certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- Whether the District Court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy.
Holdings
- CREAMMA does not imply a private cause of action for a job applicant whose employment offer was rescinded after a positive cannabis test, so Count I was properly dismissed.
- New Jersey's Pierce public-policy exception protects employees from wrongful termination but does not extend to a prospective employee's failure-to-hire claim; therefore Count II was properly dismissed.
- The District Court was not required to dismiss without prejudice or provide an opportunity to amend because the asserted civil-rights claims arose under New Jersey law rather than federally recognized civil-rights law.
- The court declined to certify either state-law question because the governing New Jersey principles were sufficiently clear, the issues were not of exceptional importance, and certification would not promote judicial economy.
- The District Court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction because the parties were diverse and the amount in controversy plausibly exceeded $75,000.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing Count I of Zanetich’s claim.” (25)
“For these reasons, New Jersey has not permitted and likely would not permit Zanetich to pursue a claim for failure-to-hire in violation of public policy.” (30)
“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.” (33)
Factual background
In January 2022, Erick Zanetich applied for an asset-protection position at a Walmart facility in Swedesboro, New Jersey. Walmart offered him the job conditioned on passing a drug test, but rescinded the offer after he tested positive for cannabis under a corporate policy making applicants who tested positive for drugs ineligible for employment. Zanetich alleged that the rescission violated CREAMMA and New Jersey's public-policy exception to at-will employment.
Procedural history
Zanetich applied for an asset-protection position at a New Jersey Walmart facility, received a conditional offer, tested positive for cannabis, and had the offer rescinded. He filed a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court; Walmart removed on diversity grounds. The District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed both claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Third Circuit affirmed and declined to certify the state-law questions.