A bus driver's amended negligence claims against drug testing companies were blocked.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TODD TAYLOR, Case No. 3:25-cv-01539-JR Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATION NATIONAL EXPRESS LLC, DURHAM HOLDING II, LLC, DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, LP, HIRERIGHT, LLC, and NW ONSITE DRGU TESTING, Defendants. __________________________________ RUSSO, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Todd Taylor moves to file amended negligence claims against defendants HireRight LLC (“HR”) and NW Onsite Drug Testing, LLC (“NW”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion should be denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a professional school bus driver. On July 15, 2025, he initiated this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court against his employers – defendants National Express LLC, Durham Holding II, LLC, and Durham School Services, LP (collectively the “Durham Defendants”) – and two drug screening companies – HR and NW – for disability discrimination and negligence. In particular, plaintiff alleges: On November 17, 2023, Durham Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a random drug and alcohol screening, administered by NW Onsite. During this screening, Plaintiff was asked to provide a urine sample. Plaintiff has a medical history of “shy bladder” and was unable to produce a urine sample after multiple attempts, consuming fluid, and waiting before attempting again. Durham Defendant’s designated employer representative (“DER”) then placed Plaintiff on unpaid leave and sent him home. On November 28, 2023, the DER instructed Plaintiff to pick up a Shy Bladder Evaluation Form and take that form to his doctor. Plaintiff contacted a physician assistant, who provided documentation that Plaintiff was likely suffering from shy bladder syndrome. The DER then submitted this documentation to HireRight, a business that provides Medical Review Officer (“MRO”) services for Durham Defendants, including review of drug and alcohol testing results. HireRight rejected the conclusions presented by Plaintiff’s physician assistant because he was not a medical doctor and his evidence was subjective. Neither HireRight nor Durham Defendants took additional action to resolve the question of whether Plaintiff had shy bladder syndrome. In recommending termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the DER relied on HireRight’s determination that there was no qualified medical reason for Plaintiff's inability to produce urine. On May 6, 2024, HireRight provided Plaintiff with a copy of his test results along with documentation from Durham Defendants relating to the test results. Taylor v. Nat’l Express LLC, 2025 WL 4643993 (D. Or. Dec. 8, 2025), adopted by 2026 WL 496495, *1 (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2026) (internal citations omitted). The Durham Defendants timely removed plaintiff’s complaint to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that diversity jurisdiction was improper because NW is an Oregon company. HR also moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On February 23, 2026, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand: NW Onsite has been fraudulently joined because there is no possibility that an Oregon court would find that Plaintiff states a cause of action against it. Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against NW Onsite for employment discrimination because there can be no allegation that NW Onsite employed Plaintiff. Plaintiff also cannot establish a cause of action against NW Onsite for negligence. To state a claim for negligence under Oregon law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant (1) owed plaintiff a duty, (2) the duty was breached, and (3) the breach caused the plaintiff harm. Plaintiff cannot establish that a duty was breached by NW Onsite under the circumstances present here. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that NW Onsite was negligent in failing to provide a Shy Bladder Evaluation Form and by failing to provide an alternative testing method when Plaintiff was unable to produce a sufficient urine sample. Fatal to Plaintiff's motion to remand, however, is that neither of these alleged breaches are of a duty owed to Plaintiff by NW Onsite. The applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations place the duty to provide a shy bladder form on the designated employer representative (i.e., the DER), not on the sample collector . . . The regulations, however, specify that the sample collector is obligated only to give the employee another opportunity to provide a specimen after an initial failure to do so and based on the employer’s instructions, this can be done using the same specimen type as the original collection or, if the collector is qualified, an alternate specimen. Here, the employer provided no such instructions to the collector . . . Defendants demonstrated that the DER instructed NW Onsite to collect a urine sample and neither instructed nor authorized collection of an alternate specimen. Therefore, any duty to provide an alternative testing method lies with Plaintiff’s employer rather than NW Onsite. Because Plaintiff cannot possibly state a negligence claim against NW Onsite for breaches of duties statutorily prescribed to a different entity, Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint. Further, this deficiency cannot be cured by granting Plaintiff leave to amend. Id. at *2-3 (internal citations omitted; emphasis in original). Separately, the Court granted HR’s motion to dismiss: Pursuant to ORS § 654A.112, the statute under which Plaintiff brings his disability discrimination claim, it is unlawful for any employer to refuse to discriminate based on disability. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails on its face to establish this element of his claim – that HireRight employed Plaintiff. This is further evidenced by Plaintiff’s lack of argument to the contrary in his response to HireRight’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also alleges that HireRight was negligent in failing timely to provide the shy bladder form, failing to confer with plaintiff on the testing results, failing to interview plaintiff before making verification decisions, failing to direct plaintiff to another physician, and failing to timely notify plaintiff of HireRight’s duties and responsibilities in reporting positive test results. Because none of these alleged breaches are of duties owed to Plaintiff by HireRight under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff has failed plausibly to state a claim of negligence against HireRight. Id. at *4 (internal citations omitted; emphasis in original). STANDARDS Pursuant to Rule 15, leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Courts apply Rule 15 with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 31

Official opinion source