Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.
1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 476, 765 S.W.2d 497, 1989 WL 18938 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an at-will employment relationship, an employer may modify the terms of employment to include a mandatory, consensual drug-testing program. An employee's continued employment after being notified of such a change constitutes acceptance of the new terms.
Facts:
- Brenda L. Jennings was an employee of Mineo Technology Labs, Inc. under an 'at-will' employment agreement.
- Mineo Technology Labs, a private company, manufactures sensitive semiconductor components used in the space, defense, and healthcare industries.
- Sixteen months into Jennings's employment, the company announced its intent to implement a random drug-testing program.
- The program required employees to provide urine samples for analysis, but only with their written consent.
- The tests were designed to detect only illegal drugs and included safeguards for accuracy, confidentiality, and modesty.
- Under the plan, an employee who tested positive would be offered a company-funded rehabilitation program.
- Refusal to consent to a test or to participate in required rehabilitation could result in the termination of employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., in a Texas district court (trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the company from implementing its drug-testing program.
- Mineo Technology Labs, Inc. filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment that its program was lawful.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the company, declaring the plan 'lawful and enforceable' and denying all relief requested by Jennings.
- The trial court also awarded attorney's fees to the company.
- Jennings, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Mineo Technology Labs as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private employer's plan to implement a consensual drug-testing program for its at-will employees constitute an unlawful invasion of privacy that would allow a court to prevent the employer from making the program a condition of continued employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Powers, J.
No. A private employer's plan to require consent to drug testing as a condition of continued at-will employment is lawful and does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy. The court reasoned that at-will employment allows either party to modify the terms of the contract as a condition of continued employment. When an employer notifies an employee of a change, the employee's only options are to accept the new terms by continuing to work or to quit. The court rejected the argument that it should create a new public policy exception to the at-will doctrine based on the right to privacy, distinguishing this case from Sabine Pilot, which carved out a narrow exception for refusing to perform an illegal act. Crucially, the court found that the company's plan did not threaten an unlawful invasion of privacy because it was predicated on employee consent. The court dismissed the claim that economic duress rendered such consent illusory, stating that the law of contracts cannot vary based on a party's economic circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the traditional doctrine of at-will employment in Texas, prioritizing freedom of contract over an employee's common-law right to privacy in the context of private employment. It narrowly interprets the public policy exception to at-will employment established in Sabine Pilot, signaling to lower courts that they should not create new judicial exceptions. The ruling effectively places the burden on at-will employees to either accept new, potentially invasive conditions of employment or leave their job, highlighting the significant power employers hold in such relationships. The case establishes a clear precedent that consensual drug testing policies are a permissible modification to an at-will employment agreement.
