Court Opinion

ID: 9662353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:06:45.006896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.869011
License: Public Domain

Justice ENOCH filed a concurring opinion,
joined by Chief Justice PHILLIPS, and Justice O’NEILL.
Roy Solomon asserts that he will never be able to work in his chosen career again because his employer, Mission Petroleum *717Carriers, Inc., negligently conducted a drug test. Although Mission Petroleum tries to engage our interest by responding that the well-settled employment-at-will doctrine in Texas is under attack, Solomon insists, and the Court agrees, that the employment-at-will doctrine is not at issue here. Solomon, though he perhaps wishes an employer could not fire an employee for a reason that is false, is not concerned with his termination. His injury, if in fact negligently caused, is much more serious. According to Solomon, a positive result on a drug test for a professional truck driver stays with his record the rest of his life. Thus, I think it unnecessary for the Court to nevertheless discuss the employment-at-will doctrine, suggesting that that would somehow be regrettably circumscribed were we to impose common-law liability on an employer who conveys false information that results in its former employee being unemployable in his chosen career.
Having said this, I agree with the Court’s discussion about the federal mandate for drug testing, and I concur with its judgment. Congress has mandated drug testing, and the United States Department of Transportation has adopted regulations governing the circumstances here. Any superimposing by us of common-law liability on an. employer who conducts drug testing in these circumstances would alter the delicate balance the federal government has tried to achieve. Thus, we should not do so. For these reasons, I join Parts I, II, III-C, TV, and V of Justice JeffeRson’s opinion. Consequently, those parts constitute the opinion of the Court.