Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
1990 WL 168154, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9503, 750 F.Supp. 264 (1990)
Rule of Law:
An express at-will employment contract and clear handbook disclaimers prevent the formation of an implied contract for just cause termination or specific disciplinary procedures under Michigan law. Furthermore, a private employer has a qualified privilege to truthfully respond to media inquiries about its drug testing program without liability for defamation, and such a program does not constitute an invasion of privacy if based on legitimate business concerns, with proper notice, and reasonable testing procedures.
Facts:
- Defendant, an Ohio corporation with a Trim Division plant in Kalkaska, Michigan, manufactures automotive parts, where employees work in teams and some activities involve potentially hazardous equipment.
- All employees, including the plaintiffs, signed employment application forms explicitly stating that employment was for no definite period and could be terminated at will, for any or no reason, without notice.
- The employee handbook given to employees also stated it was not an employment contract, reiterated at-will employment, and included a progressive discipline section (verbal, written, final warning, discharge) but with a caveat that these steps might not always be followed for serious offenses.
- In 1988 and 1989, defendant became aware of a drug problem at its Kalkaska plant through employee complaints, truck drivers, and a contractor.
- Defendant posted a drug-free workplace policy in April 1989, prohibiting drug use and indicating employees could be tested, and later placed an undercover officer who estimated up to 60% of employees used drugs.
- On July 17, 1989, a new policy was posted, explicitly requiring all employees, as a condition of employment, to submit to blood and/or urine tests upon request for determining alcohol and/or drug use.
- On August 10 and 11, 1989, defendant conducted surprise drug tests, informing employees that refusal would be considered a voluntary quit; some employees refused and were categorized as voluntary quits.
- Employees who participated provided urine samples in bathrooms with same-gender nurses present (with an option for a stall), and signed consent and chain of custody forms; some employees tested positive and were subsequently terminated.
- One of the plaintiffs informed the news media about the drug testing, leading to media inquiries to Michael Aslanian, defendant's vice president.
- Aslanian confirmed the drug testing to the media, stating that some employees left rather than taking the test and others were terminated for positive results, but he did not name any specific employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint against defendant, raising multiple claims including breach of contract (Count I), defamation (Count II), invasion of privacy under constitutional and common law (Count III), misrepresentation (Count IV), negligence (Count V), and violation of the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (Count VI).
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) covering Counts I, II, IV, VI, and parts of Count III of the plaintiffs' complaint.
- Defendant also filed a motion for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for the remaining portions of Count III and all of Count V.
- The Court, having considered documents outside the pleadings, decided to treat both of defendant's motions as motions for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an employer breach an employment contract for failing to follow progressive disciplinary steps when explicit at-will employment agreements and handbook disclaimers negate any implied contract for just cause or specific disciplinary procedures? 2. Can an employer be held liable for defamation when its representative responds truthfully to media inquiries about a company drug testing program, without naming individuals, especially when the media contact was initiated by an employee and the statements are covered by a qualified privilege? 3. Does a private employer's mandatory drug testing of employees constitute an invasion of privacy under Michigan common law when employees were given notice, the testing procedures were reasonable, and the employer had legitimate business concerns related to safety and productivity?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge
No, the employer did not breach an employment contract for failing to follow progressive disciplinary steps, and cannot be held liable for defamation or invasion of privacy. Breach of Contract (Count I): The Court found that plaintiffs' employment was explicitly at-will, as clearly stated in their signed application forms and reiterated in the employee handbook, which also contained a disclaimer that it was not an employment contract. Under Michigan law, an express at-will agreement prevents the formation of an implied contract for just cause or specific disciplinary procedures, as established in cases like Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Loftis v. G.T. Products, Inc. The handbook’s progressive discipline section also noted that steps might not always be followed, especially for serious offenses, aligning with the drug-free workplace policy's consequence of discharge. Therefore, no breach of contract occurred. Defamation (Count II): The Court determined that defendant had a qualified privilege to make statements to the media. When one of the plaintiffs contacted the media, the drug testing program became an issue of public interest, giving the defendant a right to present its side of the story. The statements made by Michael Aslanian, the vice president, were found to be true and made without actual malice, as he only confirmed the testing, that some employees quit, and that others were terminated due to positive results, without naming individuals or falsely portraying them as "heavy drug users." Invasion of Privacy (Count III): The Court dismissed constitutional invasion of privacy claims because defendant is a private entity, not a government actor. For the common law tort of invasion of privacy, plaintiffs who refused testing had no claim for intrusion. For those who were tested, while urine collection is an intrusion, plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy because they were on notice since July 1989 that drug testing was a condition of employment. The employer had legitimate business concerns regarding worker safety and plant productivity due to hazardous activities and the identified drug problem, which justified the testing. The testing procedure itself was deemed not "highly offensive to a reasonable person," conducted in bathrooms with same-gender nurses and an option for privacy stalls. Regarding public disclosure of private facts, no individual plaintiffs were named, and the issue became public due to a plaintiff's actions, granting the defendant a right to comment on a matter of public concern. Misrepresentation (Count IV), Negligence (Count V), Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act (Count VI): The Court also granted summary judgment on these counts as plaintiffs failed to present evidence of bad faith for misrepresentation, a breach of duty separate from contract for negligence, or the nature of any handicap for the Civil Rights Act claim.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the power of clear contractual language and disclaimers in employee handbooks to maintain at-will employment status, demonstrating that implied contracts are unlikely to arise when express terms contradict them. It provides critical guidance on the scope of an employer's qualified privilege in public relations, especially when responding to media attention initiated by employees, highlighting that truthful, non-malicious statements about group outcomes are permissible. Furthermore, the decision outlines the limitations of common law invasion of privacy claims against private employers conducting mandatory drug tests, emphasizing the importance of employee notice, legitimate business justifications (like safety and productivity), and reasonable testing protocols as defenses, thus balancing employer interests with individual privacy rights.
