Recent Events & Success Stories

  • On February 15, 2017, Faye presented “Weeding Out the Facts: Marijuana Legislation & the Workplace” via a webinar hosted by Quest Diagnostics.
    Quest Webinar February 2017
  • On January 24, 2017, Faye presented “Marijuana Trends, Laws and Company Substance Abuse Policies” at MCAA’s Safety Director’s Conference in Clearwater Beach, Florida.
    MCAA January 2017
  • On December 14, 2016, Faye presented “Navigating the Haze of Marijuana In The Workplace” via a webinar hosted by AWSI.
    AWSI Webinar Dec 2016
  • On November 7, 2016, Faye presented “OSHA: Changing Landscape of Post-Accident Drug Testing” via webinar hosted by AWSI.
    AWSI Webinar Nov 2016
  • On September 16, 2016, Faye presented “2016 Update” at SAPAA’s Annual Conference in Louisville, Kentucky.
    SAPAA Sept 2016
  • On August 25, 2016, Faye presented “Stories from the War Zone: Handling Litigation Risk” at the IFDAT Conference in Stavanger, Norway.
    IFDAT Aug 2016
  • On June 9, 2016, Faye presented "Medical Marijuana Today" via a webinar hosted by CNA.
    CNA Webinar June 2016
  • On October 19, 2015, Faye presented, with Dan Demers and Kerstin Bagus, “Global Workplace Testing: Legal Aspects and Data Protection Review” at the IFDAT Conference in San Diego, California.
      IFDAT Oct 2015
  • On September 24, 2015, Faye presented “Marijuana 2015” at SAPAA’s Annual Conference in Houston, Texas.
      SAPAA Sept 2015
  • On June 4, 2015, Faye presented “New Drug Testing Challenges for Service Providers and Industry Partners” at DATIA’s Annual Conference in Miami, Florida.
      DATIA June 2015
  • On May 29, 2015, Faye presented “Oil and Gas: Contractor Drug and Alcohol Testing Guidelines” at the EWDTS Conference in Lisbon, Portugal.
      EWDTS May 2015
  • On September 26, 2014, Faye presented with R.H. Barry Sample, Ph.D. “Marijuana: A Look at the Science & State Legislation” at SAPAA’s Annual Conference in Richmond, Virginia
      SAPAA Sept 2014
  • On September 12, 2014, Faye presented, with Josephine Elizabeth Kenney and Kerstin Bagus, “Global Workplace Testing: Legal Aspects and Data Protection Review” at the IFDAT Conference in Dublin, Northern Ireland.
      IFDAT Sept 2014
  • On May 30, 2014, Faye presented “States Continue to Add Requirements to Drug Testing: Are You Ready?” and also presented, with R.H. Barry Sample, Ph.D., “Drug Testing Trends – Marijuana: State of the Science & “Medical” Marijuana Legislation” at DATIA’s Annual Conference in Phoenix, Arizona.
      DATIA May 2014
  • On April 24, 2014, Faye presented "State Drug Testing Laws: Common Terms and How They Differ Between States" via a webinar hosted by SAPAA..
      SAPAA Webinar April 2014
  • On March 20, 2014, Faye presented "Unique State Collection Requirements" via a webinar hosted by SAPAA.
      SAPAA Webinar March 2014
  • On September 13, 2013, Faye presented “State Initiatives: Pitfalls and Priorities” at SAPAA’s Annual Conference in Henderson, Nevada.
      SAPAA Sept 2013
  • On July 18, 2013, Faye presented “Workers’ Compensation Post-Accident Drug Testing” via webinar hosted by SAPAA.
      SAPAA Webinar July 2013
  • On June 18, 2013, Faye presented “Observed Urine Specimen Collections” via a webinar hosted by SAPAA.
      SAPAA Webinar June 2013
  • On May 15, 2013, Lindsey presented “Simple Tips for Owners: Workplace Laws and Your Business” at the WBEA’s Annual Conference in Houston, Texas.
      WBEA Conference May 2013
  • On April 11, 2013, Faye presented “Navigating the Uneven Legal Terrain of Substance Abuse Testing Services” at DATIA’s Annual Conference in Orlando, Florida.
      DATIA April 2013

 

Recent Success Stories

  • On April 24, 2017, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment obtained by the Firm on the Appellant-plaintiff’s Title VII race discrimination claim against the Firm’s client. Plaintiff tested positive on a US Department of Transportation pre-employment drug test and was therefore was not qualified for the DOT-regulated position for which he was seeking employment. Plaintiff alleged that an employee of the company and the Medical Review Officer conspired to cancel his request for a retest of his positive DOT pre-employment drug test because of plaintiff’s race. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the alleged employee conspirator did not make the final hiring decision, and plaintiff had failed to show any causal link between this alleged racial animus and the decision not to hire plaintiff. Additionally, the court agreed that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that his positive test result, which was performed by an independent, certified testing laboratory, was inaccurate and would have been overturned by a retest, or that a conspiracy actually existed between the Company’s employee and the MRO. Case No. 15-3263.
  • On April 15, 2017, the Firm obtained voluntary dismissal of plaintiff’s claims in Alabama state court alleging negligence in the performance a forensic hair test. The Firm’s client did not pay for plaintiff’s dismissal, instead resting on the uncontroverted data and science supporting its test result and the lack of any credible support for plaintiff’s allegations, including an allegation that cocaine should somehow be naturally present in the hair strands of African American donors. Case No. CV-2015-900214.00.
  • On March 29, 2017, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal obtained by the Firm of plaintiffs’ 42 USC § 1981 claim against its client that forensic hair testing constituted intentional racial discrimination against African American donors. The plaintiffs were students at a private high school subject to a student drug testing contract. Plaintiffs repeatedly tested positive for cocaine and claimed that they were threatened with expulsion. Plaintiffs alleged that the hair testing services offered by the Firm’s client targeted African American donors in a discriminatory manner because they tested positive at a higher rate than non-African American donors. According to plaintiffs, independent tests of other specimens submitted by the plaintiffs demonstrated that none of the plaintiffs had cocaine in their system at the time their specimens were tested by the Firm’s client. In affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ 42 USC § 1981 claim, the Seventh Circuit noted that even if the testing process was flawed, for which there was no evidence, there was no evidence the testing laboratory even knew the donor’s race when it tested the hair specimens. The court also noted the number of times the plaintiffs had been allowed to be retested and that one plaintiff was in fact Caucasian. Case No. 16-2856.
  • On March 3, 2017, the Firm obtained voluntary dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina arising from a positive workplace drug test. Plaintiff alleged inter alia that the Firm’s client applied a testing cut-off level to his forensic workplace drug test results that that was too low. Plaintiff also sought to allege simple negligence in the performance of his drug test and defamation by reporting his positive drug test result to his prospective employer. The Firm’s client did not pay for plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice, instead resting on its laboratory testing data and testing methodologies and the lack of any credible legal support for the majority of plaintiff’s claims. CA No. 2:17-cv-00140-DCN.
  • On January 23, 2017, the Firm obtained the involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, including derivative claims by donor-plaintiff’s spouse, in Texas state court arising from a positive workplace drug test. The court dismissed donor plaintiff’s claims finding inter alia that his defamation claims failed because Texas law did not recognize the duty asserted by the donor and due to the laboratory’s qualified privilege in performing and reporting workplace drug test results. After dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, plaintiffs ultimately abandoned their efforts to obtain reconsideration by the court. Case Number 2016-51272.
  • On November 17, 2016, the Firm obtained voluntary dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims in Kentucky state court alleging negligence in the performance of a clinical urine drug test performed for clinical pain management purposes. Plaintiff alleged that she could no longer receive pain management medication because of an error in the collection of her urine specimen and/or negligent testing by the Firm’s client. The Firm’s client did not pay for plaintiff’s dismissal, instead resting on the uncontroverted data and science supporting its test result and the lack of any credible support for plaintiff’s allegations. Case Number 16-CI-00501.
  • On October 24, 2016, the Firm obtained summary judgment on each of plaintiff’s various state law claims brought on behalf of her deceased husband in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The claims brought on behalf of the estate of a former professional boxer against the Firm’s clients arose from an HIV antibody test performed in 1996 as part of the State of Nevada’s licensing requirements and on the eve of a scheduled boxing match. The blood sample provided by Plaintiff’s deceased husband tested positive for HIV antibodies, and therefore the boxer was unable to comply with Nevada requirements that he provide a negative HIV laboratory test report and the scheduled match was cancelled. Despite the passage of more than 15 years and the boxer’s subsequent death, Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the positive HIV-1 Western blot reported by the Firm’s client in February 1996 was inaccurate because her deceased husband never had HIV, was never subsequently tested or treated for or diagnosed with HIV after 1996, and died HIV negative in 2013. Although the Firm twice moved to dismiss the action on numerous grounds including inter alia limitations, the Court ultimately granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims on both limitations and on the grounds that all of the evidence demonstrated the accuracy of the 1996 HIV antibody test result and that fact the boxer had repeatedly been diagnosed and treated for HIV after that test. Lastly, the district court rejected plaintiff’s attempts to transform the basis of her claims from negligence in testing to a products claim, essentially alleging that HIV antibody testing was unable to diagnose HIV in humans, in an effort to avoid summary judgment. Case Number 2:14-cv-01207.
  • Marsh v. Omega Laboratories, Inc.; Civil Case No. 1:16-CV-0021; In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Virginia, Western Division.
    May 2016. Received plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of workplace drug testing claims against Firm’s client.
  • L.P., by and through his Next Friend, Tenyiah Patterson, et al. vs. Marian Catholic High School, et al.; Case No. 1:15-cv-11236; In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    May 2016. Obtained dismissal of plaintiffs’ race discrimination and hair drug testing claims against Firm’s client under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • Certified EMS, Inc. d/b/a CPnS Staffing vs. Doctors Hospital 1997; L.P. d/b/a Doctors Hospital Tidwell; Cause No. 1056155-801; In the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas.
    April 2016.Obtained default judgment against delinquent account of Firm’s client and executed for entire judgment amount, plus fees and interest, by writ of garnishment.
  • Minaz Pirani vs. Saleem Shakoor et al.; Case No. 12-DCV-202220; In the 268th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas.
    December 2015. Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against Firm’s client in partnership dispute.
  • Robin Willie Turner vs. Hirschbach Motor Line; Cause No. 10-cv-50326; In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
    October 2015. Obtained summary judgment on plaintiff’s race discrimination and conspiracy claims against Firm’s client.
  • Keith Menard vs. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Industrial Medical Testing, L.L.C. and Examination Management Services, Inc., Case 2:14-cv-02443-MVL-KWR; In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
    September 2015. Received plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of workplace drug testing claims against Firm’s client.
  • Thomas Turner vs. Industrial Medical Group of Santa Maria Valley, Inc., et al.; Case No. 1457195; In the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, Cook Division.
    April 2015. Received plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of workplace drug testing claims against Firm’s client.
  • Sumie Clark vs. Boyd Tunica, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Town Hotel and Gambling Hall, et al.; Case No. 3:14cv204-MPM-JMN; In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division.
    February 2015. Obtained dismissal of plaintiffs’ workplace drug testing claims against Firm’s client under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • Peter Moreno vs. ODACS, Inc.; Appeal No. C-130810; In the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District of Ohio, Hamilton County, Ohio.
    November 2014. Obtained reversal of trial court’s order to produce U.S. Department of Transportation drug testing records made in violation of federal law.
  • Kimberly A. Legette vs. Omega Laboratories, Inc.; Case No. 2012-CP-10-1513; In the Court of Common Pleas, In the Ninth Judicial Circuit, County of Charleston, South Carolina.
    March 2014. Received plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s workplace hair drug testing claims against Firm’s client on eve of hearing on Caldwell Everson’s motion for summary judgment.
  • David Hawley vs. SCANA Corporation, et al.; Case No. 2012-CP-3203356; In the Court of Common Pleas, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, County of Lexington, South Carolina.
    July 2013. Received plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of workplace drug testing claims against Firm’s client.
  • James Knox v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al; No. 12-1718, In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    June 2013. Obtained decision upholding U.S. District Court’s entry of summary judgment on appellant’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Firm’s client.
  • Jeffrey R. Swaters vs. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. et al; Case No.: CACE10013086 (21); In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.
    April 2013. Obtained reversal of trial court’s order to produce U.S. Department of Transportation drug testing records made in violation of federal law and state subpoena requirements.

 

Copyright © 2011 Caldwell Everson PLLC
(713) 654-3000
Disclaimer