Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Employee Drug Testing: Third Parties' Duty of Care

By Marc E. Weinstein
August 24, 2003

In April, Pennsylvania became the latest state to hold that a company hired by an employer to administer employee drug tests owes a duty of reasonable care to the employees subjected to those tests. In Renee Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Apr. 25, 2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the defendant, a hospital, owed a duty of care to Sharpe, an employee of Federal Express, with regard to collection and handling of her urine specimen for the employment-related drug test that plaintiff was required to undergo. Sharpe had been fired from Federal Express after her drug test came back positive for cocaine use and she claimed the positive result was attributable to the errors made by the hospital in collecting, labeling and processing her urine sample before sending it to a laboratory for testing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, concluding that the hospital owed no duty of care to Sharpe, with whom it had no contract. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, by a 2-1 margin, although two of the three judges concluded that the applicable rule of law was wrong and should be overruled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed.

Justice Thomas Saylor, writing for the court, cited the pronouncement of the dissenting Superior Court judge and opined, 'the increase in mandatory employment-related drug screening and the potential ramifications of false-positives create a substantial public interest in ensuring that the medical facilities involved in the testing exercise a reasonable degree of care to avoid erroneous test results occurring because of negligence.' Sharpe, 821 A.2d at 1221.

PA's Duty of Care

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.