Employment Law for Business 6th Edition by Dawn Bennett Alexander ,Laura Hartman

تمرين 7

In December 2001, Mervyn Losing, a manager at a Food Lion grocery store, was selected to take a random drug test. The test result came back as "substituted," meaning the sample submitted did not appear to be human urine. The laboratory performed a confirmation test that also came back "substituted." Under Food Lion's substance abuse policy, "substituted" results are considered positive screens for drug use. Food Lion had a zero tolerance policy, so Losing was fired. He insisted on a retest, which came back negative. Food Lion accepted that the first test could have been a false positive and reinstated him in the same position. In March 2002, Losing was suspended for a week for failing to follow a Food Lion policy. Upon his return, he claimed he was continually harassed by co-workers and said that his supervisor had talked about his failed drug test to other employees, suggesting that he had substituted nonhuman urine in his first drug test. He admitted that he did not ever hear the supervisor make statements to his co-workers; but says he never told anyone, so the only way they could have known was through the supervisor. In 2005, Losing sued Food Lion, claiming defamation based on slander. Can he state a claim?