Opinion ID: 6435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: summary of case facts

Text: The district court concluded that the following facts were established by the summary judgment evidence; and neither party disputes that this portion of the district court's opinion is correct. Plaintiff-Appellant Willis has been employed by Du Pont at its La Porte, Texas chemical plant since March 26, 1979 as a utility helper. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, his employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement, which included a substance abuse policy covering La Porte plant employees. In July 1990, Du Pont, in alliance with the Union, instituted a random drug testing policy. Du Pont contracted with Roche to conduct the screening and testing of urine samples provided by Du Pont in accordance with strict protocol procedures in the contract. On August 2, 1990, Du Pont ordered that Willis participate in a random drug test, in accordance with its substance abuse policy. The test was performed by Roche and a report issued to Du Pont, 2 pursuant to a consent form signed by Willis. The report indicated that Willis had tested positive for methamphetamine use. Willis remained employed at Du Pont and continued to receive his regular salary after Du Pont received Roche's report. Willis was placed on restricted work duty and was sent to a physician. Plaintiff was also required to attend counseling sessions and was required to submit to follow up testing. On November 2, 1990, Roche informed Du Pont that Willis's drug test had registered a false positive (for methamphetamine use). The false positive was the result of confusing the presence of over the counter cold medication with the presence of illegal methamphetamine in Willis's urine. Upon learning of the mistake, Du Pont compensated Willis for lost time and for medical expenses. Willis brought suit for negligence, gross negligence, and libel and slander—contending that his damages included various aspects of mental suffering and the loss of his good name and reputation. He also claimed monetary damages, but acknowledged that Du Pont had made monetary amends with regard to the payment of these sums in the form of lost work time repayment and reimbursement for medical expenses.