In this case, as discussed here, the Appellate Division reversed a trial level decision that had granted dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), at the threshold. Today, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling substantially for the reasons offered by the Appellate Division.The Court stated its agreement with the Appellate Division’s ruling that “there is no conflict” between the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 et seq., and the LAD. The Justices “decline[d], however, to adopt the Appellate Division’s view that ‘the Compassionate Use Act intended to cause no impact on existing employment rights.

Employers should aim to stay abreast of the legal developments as they roll out and seek counsel when employees present new questions relating to the relationship between the Jake Honig Act and employer’s obligations.Notes:[1] 21 U.S.C. § 841.[2] N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -29. Prior to amendments passed in July 2019, this act was known as the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.[3]N.J.S.A. 17B:17-4.

Employers should aim to stay abreast of the legal developments as they roll out and seek counsel when employees present new questions relating to the relationship between the Jake Honig Act and employer’s obligations.Notes:[1] 21 U.S.C. § 841.[2] N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -29. Prior to amendments passed in July 2019, this act was known as the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.[3]N.J.S.A. 17B:17-4.

Earlier this year, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the relationship between the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 et seq., and the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 2019), the plaintiff claimed he was fired from his job as a funeral director because he had a disability (cancer) and was treating his disability with medical marijuana.While the plaintiff was working a funeral, a vehicle that he was driving was struck by another vehicle that ran a stop sign.

In each instance, the use is a conditional use, subject to twelve specific conditional use standards. The Ordinance also amends and supplements the definitions section of the Land Development Ordinance to mirror those contained in the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, codified at N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1, et. seq.The Ordinance comes on the heels of the New Jersey Department of Health (“DOH”), Medical Marijuana Division’s April 1, 2019 biennial report, which noted that current medical marijuana alternative treatment centers “have struggled to keep pace with a growing patient population.”

[co-author: Anastasia Regne, Law Clerk ] In a decision that could have sweeping effects on New Jersey employers with drug-free workplace and drug-testing policies, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings ruled that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) may require employers to reasonably accommodate employees who use medical cannabis permitted by the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 et seq. (“CUMMA”).Background Plaintiff Justin Wild (“Wild”) was a funeral director at defendant Carriage Funeral Holdings (“Carriage Funeral”).

The job required him to direct funerals, engage in visitations, perform the embalming process, “cosmetize” the diseased, prepare death certifications, conduct religious services at gravesites, and drive the funeral home’s hearse and other vehicles. In 2015, he was diagnosed with cancer and prescribed medical marijuana as part of his treatment pursuant to the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16.While driving a funeral vehicle at work one day, plaintiff was struck by a car that ran a red light and transported to the emergency room. He informed his treating physician that he had a license to possess medical marijuana, and the physician found it clear that plaintiff was not under the influence of marijuana, so no blood test was required.

Div. 2019). Plaintiff in this case under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49 (“LAD”), used medical marijuana, as authorized by the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16 (“Compassionate Use Act’), as part of his cancer treatment. Plaintiff worked for the first named defendant, Carriage, as a licensed funeral director.

The proposed bill most likely to become law with the new administration comes as employers are just getting comfortable with a workforce eligible for medical marijuana use. Though similar to current medical marijuana policy, the new law legalizing recreational marijuana use will affect hiring, discipline, and firing decisions in novel and important ways.New Jersey Law Today Since 2010, cannabis use has been limited to medicinal purposes under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA), codified at N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1, et seq. Under CUMMA, employers must reconcile accommodating employee-alleged disability (that is treated by prescription marijuana) with the competing need to ensure a safe and unimpaired workforce.

The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-1 to -56, which gives the Director of the Division power to add, delete, or reschedule controlled substances. Plaintiff noted that when the Legislature passed the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16 (“CUMMA”), in 2010, the Legislature found that marijuana had a beneficial use in treating or alleviating pain from medical conditions. Plaintiff contended that “marijuana no longer satisfied one of the requirements for inclusion in Schedule I, that the substance ‘has no accepted medical use in treatment,’ N.J.S.A. 24:21-5(a).”The Director of the Division denied plaintiff’s petition on multiple grounds.