## Facts

- Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. employed Roy B. Solomon as an at-will truck driver and subjected drivers to random drug testing required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rules.
- DOT regulations permitted Mission to use its own employees to collect urine specimens while requiring testing by outside laboratories.
- On April 3, 1997, Solomon was selected for a random test at Mission’s Beaumont terminal.
- Mission’s terminal manager provided Solomon an unsealed collection container that had been sitting exposed on a desk.
- Solomon provided a specimen, signed the chain-of-custody form, and did not report any collection irregularities to the Medical Review Officer at the time.
- The laboratory reported a positive result for a marijuana metabolite (THC); Solomon denied use and requested retesting of the split specimen, which also tested positive.
- Mission terminated Solomon’s employment, and Solomon later claimed he was denied other trucking jobs because of the positive test record.
- Solomon sued Mission for negligence, alleging improper collection procedures caused a false positive and resulting economic harm.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer conducting in-house urine specimen collection under DOT regulations owes a common-law duty of ordinary care to an at-will employee in collecting the specimen.
2. Whether recognizing such a duty would effectively create an impermissible negligent-discharge claim inconsistent with Texas employment-at-will doctrine.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment that Solomon take nothing.
- The court held Mission owed no common-law duty of ordinary care to an at-will employee regarding in-house urine specimen collection performed pursuant to DOT regulations.
- The court declined to impose an additional tort duty in light of the detailed federal regulatory framework and policy concerns tied to employment-at-will.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas employer performing in-house urine collection under DOT drug-testing regulations does not owe an at-will employee a common-law negligence duty in the collection process.
- When a comprehensive regulatory scheme supplies protocols and employee protections (including split-specimen retesting and Medical Review Officer review), Texas courts may decline to create overlapping common-law duties.
- Texas employment-at-will limits tort theories that functionally recast termination-related complaints as negligence claims.

## Conclusion

Because DOT regulations provide detailed procedures and mechanisms to challenge erroneous results, and because imposing a negligence duty would conflict with employment-at-will by inviting termination-based tort claims, the Texas Supreme Court refused to recognize a common-law duty for employer specimen collection and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the employee.


Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003)