HOUSTON – On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court held that the third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients’ employees.
In 2021, the First Court of Appeals 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.
In 2018, Guillermo Mendez filed suit against the Houston Area Safety Council 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.
The First Court of Appeals agreed with Mendez, reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the First Cour, holding “that the third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients’ employees.”
“Whether such a duty is desirable is a separate policy question for the Legislature, which can balance competing factors apart from the common law,” the opinion states. “Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for petitioners Safety Council and Psychemedics.”
Supreme Court case No. 21-0496