## Facts

- Eagle-Picher Industries operated an auto-parts facility in Kalkaska, Michigan, where employees worked around potentially hazardous equipment (e.g., presses, forklifts, hot glue).
- Plaintiffs were current or former employees (and some former applicants) at the facility.
- Each employee signed an employment application containing explicit at-will language stating employment could be terminated at any time, for any reason or no reason, and that any contrary limitation required a dated writing executed by both parties.
- In April 1989, after learning of workplace drug problems, Eagle-Picher adopted a written drug-free-workplace policy.
- On July 17, 1989, Eagle-Picher notified employees it would begin drug testing; on August 10, 1989, it conducted unannounced drug tests.
- Plaintiffs alleged the testing, the procedures used, communications about results, and ensuing discipline/discharge breached contractual rights and invaded privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), and supported other tort theories including defamation-type claims.

## Issues

1. Whether explicit at-will disclaimers barred plaintiffs’ contract-based claims that the drug-testing program and related discipline/discharge violated enforceable employment rights.
2. Whether surprise urinalysis testing under a written workplace policy constituted a highly offensive intrusion upon seclusion under Michigan law.
3. Whether internal communications and consequences related to drug-test results could support defamation or similar tort liability.

## Decision

- The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on multiple counts and portions of others, and granted dismissal for failure to state a claim on the remaining challenged counts.
- The court enforced the at-will application disclaimers and rejected claims that the drug-testing policy or plant communications created contractual limits on termination or discipline.
- The court held the drug-testing program, in the workplace and safety context presented, did not constitute an actionable intrusion upon seclusion.
- The court rejected defamation-type and related tort claims tied to testing and results, finding plaintiffs failed to plead or prove required elements such as actionable publication of a false statement.

## Legal Principles

- Under Michigan law, clear at-will disclaimers stating employment may be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason, and requiring a signed writing for any contrary promise, defeat implied-contract and legitimate-expectation theories as a matter of law.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; workplace drug testing conducted under a written policy, justified by safety concerns, and implemented in a routine employment setting may fall below that threshold.
- Defamation and related tort claims generally require a false statement of fact and actionable publication; limited internal use or communication of drug-test results for employment decisions is typically insufficient absent proof of falsity and publication.

## Conclusion

The court largely disposed of the case at the pleading and summary-judgment stages, holding that express at-will disclaimers foreclosed contract-based challenges to the drug-testing policy and that, given the employer’s safety rationale and implementation under a written policy, the testing and related internal actions did not support invasion-of-privacy or defamation-type liability.


Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 750 F. Supp. 264 (W.D. Mich. 1990)