HOUSTON – The First Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court that awarded summary judgment in favor of two defendants that were sued by a man who lost his job after a drug test yielded a positive result for cocaine.
Back in 2018, Guillermo Mendez filed suit against the Houston Harris Area Safety Council (HASC) and Psychemedics – the trade association that collected his biological samples and the drug-testing laboratory that performed the test.
Court records show Mendez was formerly employed by Turnaround Welding Services. He was assigned to a Valero jobsite and required to submit to a drug and alcohol screening.
On Sept. 15, 2016, a HASC employee collected Mendez’s hair sample and filled out Psychmedics’s control form. The hair sample tested positive for cocaine and Mendez was instructed by a Valero employee that he needed to submit to an additional drug screen.
On Sept. 23, 2016, Mendez provided a second hair sample, which tested negative for cocaine. Two weeks later, Mendez was terminated due to the first positive drug test.
Mendez sued HASC and Psychemedics, alleging that they were negligent in administering and analyzing the first hair follicle drug test and that as a result of their negligence he lost his job.
In turn, Psychemedics and HASC filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe Mendez a duty of care under Texas law.
They further argued that even if they did owe a duty of care, Mendez had no evidence that they breached any standard of care.
Court records show a trial court held that HASC and Psychemedics did not owe Mendez a duty of care, granting their motions.
Mendez appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that neither company owed him a duty of care in their collection and analysis of his hair sample.
On April 29, the First Court agreed with Mendez, reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
“We hold that when an individual is required, as a condition of employment, to submit to drug testing, the law recognizes a duty to use reasonable care in collecting and processing biological samples between third-party collection and testing agencies and the employees they test,” the opinion states.
“HASC and Psychemedics each owed a duty of care to Mendez.”
Appeals case No. 01-19-00288-CV