## Facts

- Solvay Minerals implemented a workplace substance-abuse testing program and contracted with Afton, Inc. to collect employee urine specimens.
- Harvey J. Duncan, a Solvay employee, was randomly selected for testing; Afton employee Leigh Ann Shears supervised the collection.
- Afton collected Duncan’s specimen; another company analyzed it and reported a .32 urine alcohol content to Solvay.
- Solvay terminated Duncan based on the reported result.
- Duncan alleged Afton and Shears negligently trained and performed specimen collection and handling, including leaving the specimen unsealed, failing to record temperature, and altering chain-of-custody documentation.
- Duncan alleged Afton misrepresented to Solvay the accuracy and reliability of urine alcohol testing and the reliability of the procedures used.
- The district court dismissed Duncan’s negligence-based complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding Wyoming law did not recognize a duty from the collector to the tested employee and did not separately address negligent misrepresentation.
- Duncan appealed from the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a urine-specimen collection company and its employee owe a duty of reasonable care to an employee required to submit a specimen for workplace drug/alcohol testing.
2. Whether Duncan’s complaint adequately pled a claim for negligent misrepresentation distinct from general negligence.
3. Whether dismissal at the pleading stage was proper where the complaint alleged negligent collection/handling and misstatements about test reliability leading to termination.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that a collection company owes a duty of care to the tested employee when collecting, handling, and processing urine specimens for substance-abuse testing.
- The court concluded Duncan adequately pled negligent misrepresentation, and the district court erred by failing to recognize and address that theory at the dismissal stage.
- Because the case was dismissed on the pleadings, the court treated Duncan’s factual allegations as true and viewed them in the light most favorable to him.

## Legal Principles

- A company hired to collect, handle, and process employee urine specimens for workplace substance-abuse testing owes the tested employee a duty of reasonable care, even without contractual privity.
- Duty may be recognized where harm to the tested employee from negligent specimen collection/handling is foreseeable and closely connected to the collector’s conduct because the results are used for employment decisions.
- A plaintiff may state a claim for negligent misrepresentation where the collector allegedly provides inaccurate information (or omits material information) about testing reliability or procedural compliance, and such information foreseeably influences employer action.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court determines legal sufficiency of the claims, not whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove breach or causation.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Duncan’s claims, holding that urine-specimen collectors in workplace testing owe tested employees reasonable care in collection and handling and that Duncan’s allegations also stated negligent misrepresentation, requiring further proceedings on the merits.


Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739 (Wyo. 1999)