Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In April, Pennsylvania became the latest state to hold that a company hired by an employer to administer employee drug tests owes a duty of reasonable care to the employees subjected to those tests. In Renee Sharpe v. St. Luke's Hosp., 821 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Apr. 25, 2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the defendant, a hospital, owed a duty of care to Sharpe, an employee of Federal Express, with regard to collection and handling of her urine specimen for the employment-related drug test that plaintiff was required to undergo. Sharpe had been fired from Federal Express after her drug test came back positive for cocaine use and she claimed the positive result was attributable to the errors made by the hospital in collecting, labeling and processing her urine sample before sending it to a laboratory for testing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, concluding that the hospital owed no duty of care to Sharpe, with whom it had no contract. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, by a 2-1 margin, although two of the three judges concluded that the applicable rule of law was wrong and should be overruled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Thomas Saylor, writing for the court, cited the pronouncement of the dissenting Superior Court judge and opined, 'the increase in mandatory employment-related drug screening and the potential ramifications of false-positives create a substantial public interest in ensuring that the medical facilities involved in the testing exercise a reasonable degree of care to avoid erroneous test results occurring because of negligence.' Sharpe, 821 A.2d at 1221.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.