## Facts

- Jane Doe received a conditional employment offer from The Quaker Oats Company, contingent on a satisfactory pre-employment drug screen.
- Quaker retained SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (SBCL), an independent laboratory, to perform urine drug testing.
- Doe’s urine test was positive for opiates, and Quaker withdrew the job offer under a policy disqualifying applicants with positive results who did not disclose current medications.
- Doe conceded the test accurately detected opiates but contended the result was caused by eating poppy-seed muffins rather than illegal drug use.
- Doe alleged SBCL knew its method could not distinguish poppy-seed-related opiates from illegal opiates, failed to warn Doe or Quaker about that limitation, and overstated the result’s significance.
- Doe sued SBCL and its parent company for negligence, breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, and tortious interference with prospective employment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals allowed negligence and tortious interference claims against SBCL to proceed; the Texas Supreme Court reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether an independent drug-testing laboratory hired by an employer owes the tested individual a duty to warn the individual or employer that ingestion of certain substances (e.g., poppy seeds) can produce a positive result.
2. Whether the laboratory owes additional negligence-based duties, such as inquiring into diet, investigating the cause of a positive result, or returning/preserving the specimen for the applicant.
3. Whether the laboratory owes the tested individual a duty of good faith and fair dealing based on a special relationship.
4. Whether the laboratory’s communications or conduct toward the employer can support liability for tortious interference with the applicant’s prospective employment.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court held the laboratory did not owe Doe a general duty to warn about dietary causes of positive results or to investigate the cause of an accurate positive finding.
- The court rendered judgment that Doe take nothing on her negligence and related duty theories, including any asserted duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- The court held a fact issue existed on Doe’s tortious interference claim based on alleged improper communications about the meaning and reliability of the test result.
- The court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings limited to tortious interference.

## Legal Principles

- A drug-testing laboratory retained by an employer owes a duty to perform testing and report results with reasonable care; absent additional recognized duties, liability does not extend to advising on benign causes of a positive result.
- Texas law does not impose on such laboratories a general duty to warn about substances that may yield a positive result, to question applicants about diet, or to investigate alternative explanations when the reported result is accurate.
- A duty of good faith and fair dealing arises in Texas only from limited, recognized special relationships; the laboratory–test-subject relationship in pre-employment screening is not such a relationship.
- A laboratory may still face liability for tortious interference with prospective employment if it engages in improper conduct or makes improper representations to the employer that cause loss of the opportunity.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court confined an independent drug-testing laboratory’s negligence exposure to careful testing and accurate reporting and rejected broader warning, investigative, and good-faith duties to test subjects, while permitting a tortious interference claim to proceed where the laboratory’s alleged representations to the employer could have improperly caused the withdrawal of a job offer.


SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995)