Employer Liability in Unwelcome Drug Test Results: A Texas Supreme Court Ruling

In a recent decision, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the question of whether an employee can sue their employer after receiving an unwelcome drug test result. The court determined that a third-party entity hired by an employer to collect and test biological samples for drugs does not bear a common-law duty to perform these services with reasonable care.

The case involved Guillermo M. Mendez, who had been employed as a pipefitter by Turnaround Welding Services for over 25 years. As an at-will employee, he was assigned to work at the Valero Ardmore Refinery. In accordance with Valero’s policy for on-site workers, Turnaround instructed Mendez to provide hair and urine samples for drug and alcohol screenings conducted by the Houston Area Safety Council.

The Safety Council collected Mendez’s samples and sent them to Psychemedics Corporation for laboratory testing. Unfortunately, Psychemedics reported that Mendez’s hair sample tested positive for cocaine and a cocaine metabolite. Mendez vehemently denied ever using cocaine and provided a second sample to DISA Global Solutions, another third-party collection entity.

DISA sent the sample to Psychemedics for testing as well, and this time, both the second and third samples yielded negative results for cocaine. DISA approved Mendez for returning to work after he completed a substance-abuse course. However, Turnaround refused to reassign him to any jobsite, including the Valero facility.

As a result, Mendez collected unemployment benefits and eventually found employment with another company. He then filed a lawsuit against Turnaround, which was later settled. Subsequently, Mendez sued the Safety Council and Psychemedics, alleging that their negligent collection, transportation, testing, and reporting of his first sample had caused him to lose his job.

Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of the Safety Council and Psychemedics, stating that they did not owe Mendez a legal duty. However, the court of appeals overturned this decision, finding that a legal duty did exist between third-party entities and the employees being tested if the employer required the test as a condition of employment.

In the case of Houston Area Safety Council, Inc. and Psychemedics Corporation v. Guillermo M. Mendez, the Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed the appellate court’s judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioners, namely the Safety Council and Psychemedics. The court emphasized that since Mendez was an at-will employee, his employer had the right to terminate him for almost any reason, and the petitioners had no control over this decision.

The Texas Supreme Court applied the factors established in the case of Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillips (1990) to evaluate the situation. It weighed the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury against the social utility of the petitioners’ services and the burden that imposing a legal duty would place on them.

In conclusion, the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that third-party entities involved in collecting and testing drug samples for employers do not bear a legal duty of care towards employees. While this decision may limit an employee’s ability to sue such entities, it underscores the importance of employers taking responsibility for the decisions and actions taken based on drug test results.