Chapter 3 Cases
Sandoval v. DISA Global Solutions Inc. (pg 39) - ANS--Sandoval was a quality control inspector
who got fired for failing a random drug test that was positive for cocaine.
-He sued DISA, the lab, and medical review officer claiming negligence, defamatory report of
positive test results, and violations of TX Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
-DISA had a qualified privilege which justifies a communication made to the employer without
malice.
-The court found that DISA's contract with the employer authorized DISA to communicate
employee's drug test results.
-It also authorized DISA to publish the status of its employees as active or inactive in their
database.
-This is because of the safety concerns inherent in jobs that require drug and alcohol testing.
-Sandoval argued that DISA couldn't rely on the privilege bc DISA showed "reckless disregard"
for the truth. But 2 different labs reported his urine was positive for cocaine and it was confirmed
by a medical review officer.
-The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting DISA summary judgement
on Sandoval's defamation claim.
Davidson v. Baird (pg 41) - ANS--Rebecca Davidson was the City Manager of Moab, Utah, and
she filed a lawsuit accusing a citizen, a reporter, and another public official of defamation and
other torts.
-The district court dismissed the suit on summary judgement, and the plaintiffs appealed.
-The Court of Appeals affirmed.
-The plaintiffs alleged that there was intentional infliction of emotional distress.
-1. Davidson did not demonstrate the requisite level of fault with regard to any of the claimed
defamatory statements.
-2. The court found that the statements did not constitute behavior so extreme as to evoke
outrage or revulsion or offend generally accepted standards of decency or morality.
- The court continued to say that public officials are subject to criticism. Citizens have the right to
express their concerns and views.
- Defamatory statements must be both false and with malice intent.
Sandoval v. DISA Global Solutions Inc. (pg 39) - ANS--Sandoval was a quality control inspector
who got fired for failing a random drug test that was positive for cocaine.
-He sued DISA, the lab, and medical review officer claiming negligence, defamatory report of
positive test results, and violations of TX Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
-DISA had a qualified privilege which justifies a communication made to the employer without
malice.
-The court found that DISA's contract with the employer authorized DISA to communicate
employee's drug test results.
-It also authorized DISA to publish the status of its employees as active or inactive in their
database.
-This is because of the safety concerns inherent in jobs that require drug and alcohol testing.
-Sandoval argued that DISA couldn't rely on the privilege bc DISA showed "reckless disregard"
for the truth. But 2 different labs reported his urine was positive for cocaine and it was confirmed
by a medical review officer.
-The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting DISA summary judgement
on Sandoval's defamation claim.
Davidson v. Baird (pg 41) - ANS--Rebecca Davidson was the City Manager of Moab, Utah, and
she filed a lawsuit accusing a citizen, a reporter, and another public official of defamation and
other torts.
-The district court dismissed the suit on summary judgement, and the plaintiffs appealed.
-The Court of Appeals affirmed.
-The plaintiffs alleged that there was intentional infliction of emotional distress.
-1. Davidson did not demonstrate the requisite level of fault with regard to any of the claimed
defamatory statements.
-2. The court found that the statements did not constitute behavior so extreme as to evoke
outrage or revulsion or offend generally accepted standards of decency or morality.
- The court continued to say that public officials are subject to criticism. Citizens have the right to
express their concerns and views.
- Defamatory statements must be both false and with malice intent.
