## Facts

- Jane Doe received a conditional job offer from Quaker Oats Company that did not state a definite employment term and required passing a drug test.
- Quaker hired SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories to conduct and report Doe’s urinalysis, and the lab represented its results as highly reliable.
- SmithKline reported Doe’s sample as positive for opiates, and Quaker rescinded the conditional offer based on that report.
- Doe first told Quaker the positive result was caused by taking a roommate’s prescription medication; she later admitted that explanation was false.
- Doe later asserted the positive result was attributable to eating poppy-seed muffins, a scientifically plausible source of an opiate-positive screen under some conditions.
- Approximately six months later, Doe reapplied to Quaker; Quaker declined to hire her, citing her earlier misrepresentation.
- Doe sued Quaker and SmithKline asserting, among other theories, breach of contract against Quaker; negligence against Quaker and SmithKline regarding testing and reporting; and tortious interference by SmithKline with Doe’s employment opportunity.
- Doe had signed a pretest release/waiver favoring the testing entities, which SmithKline asserted as a defense.

## Issues

1. Whether a conditional employment offer without a definite term created an enforceable employment contract supporting breach-of-contract claims when the offer was rescinded after a positive drug test.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine fact issue that Quaker and/or SmithKline were negligent in administering, interpreting, or reporting the drug test and related follow-up.
3. Whether Doe presented sufficient evidence for a tortious-interference claim against SmithKline based on its role in providing information that influenced Quaker’s hiring decision.
4. Whether Doe’s pretest release/waiver could exculpate SmithKline from liability for its own future negligence in employment-related drug testing.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Quaker on contract-based claims premised on a term of employment, holding the relationship was at-will due to the absence of a definite duration.
- The court reversed summary judgment in part to allow negligence-type claims tied to the drug-testing process to proceed where the record raised fact issues about reasonable care and causation.
- The court held SmithKline was not insulated as a matter of law and could face potential liability for negligence and tortious interference based on its testing and reporting.
- The court held the preinjury release/waiver was unenforceable to the extent it purported to relieve SmithKline from liability for its own future negligence in this setting.
- The disposition was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with remand for further proceedings on the reinstated claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas law, an employment offer lacking a definite term generally creates an at-will relationship and does not support breach-of-contract claims premised on wrongful termination of a fixed-term contract.
- Parties involved in employment drug testing may owe a duty of reasonable care in performing, interpreting, and communicating test results when the results foreseeably affect employment opportunities.
- Summary judgment is improper when the evidence permits competing inferences on breach or causation, requiring factfinding at trial.
- A third party supplying information that induces an employer to rescind an offer may be liable for tortious interference when the information is wrongfully provided and causes the adverse employment action.
- Preinjury exculpatory clauses are strictly construed and may be unenforceable when they lack clear, conspicuous notice of releasing a party from its own future negligence or when public policy disfavors immunizing professional services that carry serious consequences for others.

## Conclusion

The court rejected contract-based claims founded on an at-will conditional offer but revived claims that the employer and testing laboratory failed to exercise reasonable care in drug testing and reporting, allowed a tortious-interference theory against the laboratory to proceed on the record, and refused to enforce a pretest waiver as a bar to the laboratory’s liability for future negligence.


Doe v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 855 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993)