How 2026’s Cannabis Ruling Impacts New Jersey Drug Testing Laws

On May 26, 2026, the NJ Appellate Division held that employment protections granted by the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) carry a private right of action. In short, this means individuals and organizations have the right to sue for alleged violations of the law (in this case, CREAMMA) when before, lawsuits originating from violations of New Jersey drug testing laws had to come from the government agencies enforcing those laws.

In Sanders v. The Levari Group, LLC, the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff Darlene Sanders’s appeal against a ruling in defendant Levari Group’s favor. The company had rescinded Sanders’ job offer after she tested positive for cannabis on a pre-employment drug test, so she sued. While the original lawsuit didn’t go her way because she was suing as an individual, the Appellate Division had a different interpretation that sets a new legal precedent.

The biggest impact of this new legal precedent is changes to who can enforce their protections in court. But it bears mentioning that none of this has any sway over when employers may test.

Table of Contents

Sanders Changed Who Can Enforce New Jersey Drug Testing Laws

When Darlene Sanders appealed her case and brought it to the appellate court, they concluded that CREAMMA’s anti-discrimination provisions would be largely unenforceable unless the people it protects could bring their own claims. It recognized an implied private right of action under N.J.S.A. 24:6I-51 and 24:6I-52.

The decision also split from the Third Circuit’s 2024 ruling in Zanetich v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., which predicted New Jersey would not recognize a private CREAMMA claim. Sanders noted that New Jersey courts are not bound by federal courts’ predictions about state law.

What’s Allowed Under New Jersey Drug Testing Laws

CREAMMA does not ban workplace drug testing.

Under N.J.S.A. 24:6I-52, New Jersey drug testing laws still permit testing in several situations. Employers may test during pre-employment screening and regular screening of current employees. They may also use random testing, and they may test a current employee on reasonable suspicion of cannabis use during work or after observing signs of intoxication.

Employers may continue to maintain drug-free workplace policies and prohibit cannabis use, possession, or impairment during working hours. Keywords: during working hours. What an employee does off the clock is none of the employer’s business in most cases, and that includes cannabis use. So, employers can’t treat positive metabolite results as automatic proof an employee is working under the influence.

CREAMMA says an employee cannot face adverse action solely because cannabinoid metabolites appear in bodily fluid as a result of lawful cannabis use. A test may be permitted even when the employment decision based on that test is not.

The statute’s protections also reach discharge and any adverse action involving compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment. For a current employee, a cannabis-related suspension, demotion, cut in hours, or firing can come under scrutiny depending on the reason the employer gives.

A firing may also overlap with other wrongful termination theories, but the Sanders case in particular was a failure-to-hire case.

A Positive Cannabis Test Is Not Proof of Impairment

Cannabis metabolites show up on a drug test long after the intoxication wears off. This is why CREAMMA separates lab results from impairment, because an employee tested today would test positive if they used cannabis off the clock a week ago.

So the statute pairs scientifically reliable testing with a physical evaluation of whether the employee was actually impaired.

In 2026, P.L. 2025, c.325 renamed the Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert as the Workplace Impairment Recognition Evaluator and shifted parts of the certification process toward the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The Cannabis Regulatory Commission remains responsible for prescribing certification standards.

As of October 2026, the CRC’s public employer resources still point workplaces to its September 2022 Workplace Impairment Guidance. That guidance tells employers to document physical signs, behavior, and other evidence of impairment.

The CRC’s sample approach uses a reasonable-suspicion observation report, and its guidance lists tools such as a cognitive impairment test or an ocular scan.

All this begs the question from employees contesting disciplinary action: what evidence does the employer have? Under CREAMMA, a positive test result isn’t enough anymore.

Where Federal Rules Override New Jersey Drug Testing Laws

Commercial drivers and others under federal Department of Transportation drug-testing rules stay subject to those rules. CREAMMA also allows an employer to adjust its cannabis policy when following the state rule would cause a provable problem with a federal contract or funding.

In May 2026, the Appellate Division upheld the reinstatement of Jersey City police officers removed after testing positive for cannabinoids from lawful off-duty use. The court rejected the city’s argument that federal gun law automatically overrode New Jersey’s cannabis protections.

That ruling is why off-duty cannabis use by New Jersey police officers cannot be treated the same way as a federal DOT driver’s testing obligations.

Before assuming New Jersey drug testing laws control, check whether the position is governed by a separate federal testing law, grant, contract, or licensing requirement.

Medical Cannabis Patients Get Extra Rights

Under the Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act, an employer with a drug-testing policy must give any employee or job applicant who tests positive for cannabis written notice of the chance to present a legitimate medical explanation.

The employee or applicant then has three working days after the notice to explain the result or request a confirmatory retest of the original sample at their own expense. A medical cannabis authorization, proof of registration with the Cannabis Regulatory Commission, or both can serve as that explanation.

Keep the medical authorization or patient-registration information with the drug-test records from the get-go instead of scrambling to find it after a decision. In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court also allowed a funeral director’s disability claim involving off-duty medical cannabis use to proceed.

What to Save After an Offer Is Pulled or Discipline Starts

Keep the original offer letter, the laboratory result, the employer’s drug-testing policy, and every email or text about the decision. If HR withdraws a job offer, save the exact wording.

Write down what was said during any call about the test. If the employer claimed you appeared impaired, note when that supposedly happened, who observed it, and whether anyone asked you to complete an impairment evaluation.

The job posting can help too, since a commercial driving posting may identify a federal rule that changes the analysis.

For a current employee, save performance reviews and disciplinary records from before the test. If the stated reason changes from a positive cannabis screen to poor performance or a policy problem after the dispute begins, dated records show the order in which those explanations appeared.

Questions About New Jersey Drug Testing Laws and Cannabis

Can an employer test after a workplace accident?

Yes.

CREAMMA expressly allows testing following a work-related accident that the employer is investigating. Ask for the accident report, the drug-test result, and any reasonable-suspicion or impairment documentation created that day.

A metabolite result tells the employer cannabis was used at some earlier point. It does not, by itself, establish that cannabis caused the accident.

Does Sanders automatically mean an applicant wins after a rescinded offer?

No.

Sanders decided that CREAMMA’s employment protections can be enforced through a private lawsuit. It did not decide that every applicant with a positive cannabis test has a winning claim.

The court left the merits for further proceedings. An employer may still dispute why the offer was withdrawn, whether another rule applied, or whether the allegations establish a statutory violation.

Start With the Written Reason

The most useful first document after a rescinded offer, suspension, demotion, or firing is often the employer’s written explanation. Ask what decision was made and why.

Sanders gives applicants and employees a way to enforce New Jersey drug testing laws in court. The facts that matter next are much less abstract: what the employer tested, what it observed, and what reason it actually gave for the decision.