Drug Testing Bath Iron Works (BIW) offered a job to Thomas Devine, contingent on Devine's passing a drug test The testing was conducted by NorDx, a subcontractor of Roche Biomedical Laboratories When NorDx found that Devine's urinalysis showed the presence of opiates, a result confirmed by Roche, BIW refused to offer Devine permanent employment Devine claimed that the ingestion of poppy seeds can lead to a positive result and that he tested positive for opiates only because of his daily consumption of poppy seed muffins In Devine's suit against Roche, Devine argued, among other things, that he was a third party beneficiary of the contract between his employer (BIW) and NorDx (Roche) Given this factual background, consider the following questions Is Devine an intended third party beneficiary of the BIW NorDx contract In deciding this issue, should the court focus on the nature of the promises made in the contract itself or on the consequences of the contract for Devine, a third party Should employees whose job security and reputation have suffered as a result of false test results be allowed to sue the drug testing labs for the tort of negligence In such situations, do drug testing labs have a duty to the employees to exercise reasonable care in conducting the tests 3 What if an employee is tested for COVID 19 and the result is a FALSE positive The employee suffers a loss in wages as a consequence of the false test result Should the employee be allowed to collect damages in the form of lost wages from the testing facility

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Answered step by step

Verified Expert Solution

Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Posted on Oct 15, 2024

Drug Testing Bath Iron Works (BIW) offered a job to Thomas Devine, contingent on Devine's passing a drug test. The testing was conducted by NorDx,

Drug Testing

Bath Iron Works (BIW) offered a job to Thomas Devine, contingent on Devine's passing a drug test. The testing was conducted by NorDx, a subcontractor of Roche Biomedical Laboratories. When NorDx found that Devine's urinalysis showed the presence of opiates, a result confirmed by Roche, BIW refused to offer Devine permanent employment. Devine claimed that the ingestion of poppy seeds can lead to a positive result and that he tested positive for opiates only because of his daily consumption of poppy seed muffins. In Devine's suit against Roche, Devine argued, among other things, that he was a third party beneficiary of the contract between his employer (BIW) and NorDx (Roche). Given this factual background, consider the following questions.

Is Devine an intended third party beneficiary of the BIW-NorDx contract? In deciding this issue, should the court focus on the nature of the promises made in the contract itself or on the consequences of the contract for Devine, a third party?
Should employees whose job security and reputation have suffered as a result of false test results be allowed to sue the drug-testing labs for the tort of negligence? In such situations, do drug-testing labs have a duty to the employees to exercise reasonable care in conducting the tests?

3. What if an employee is tested for COVID-19 and the result is a FALSE positive. The employee suffers a loss in wages as a consequence of the false test result. Should the employee be allowed to collect damages in the form of lost wages from the testing facility?