D. Faye Caldwell Managing Partner
Education:University of Houston, J.D. cum laude |
Bar Admissions:State of Texas |
Faye is a trusted advisor, sought after speaker and results driven litigator, devoting her practice to drug testing issues.
Trusted Advisor
Faye is a pragmatic and dynamic problem solver. She compliments her expertise in drug testing with years in business, allowing her to offer legal solutions that make business sense. Faye stays on the leading edge of pending legislation trends in drug testing to meet changing circumstances. Faye is an up-to-date resource in cannabis laws for employers and drug testing service agents. She is well versed in the forensic and scientific laboratory processes, connecting with scientific leaders to ensure compliance with requirements for the Department of Transportation, National Laboratory Certification Program, state law as well as industry standards. Faye is keenly knowledgeable about employee and employer rights and obligations, fostering an environment of best practices and regulatory compliance.
Faye remains connected to the workplace drug testing industry through active membership in national and international drug and alcohol testing organizations, including:
- Appointed member of the HHS Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB),
- Appointed member of the National Safety Council Alcohol and Drug Impairment Division (NSC ADID),
- President of the Substance Abuse Program Administrators Association (SAPAA) (2019-20),
- Member of the Society of Forensic Toxicology (SOFT),
- Member of Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA),
- Member of National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA),
- Member of the European Workplace Testing Symposium (EWDTS),
- Member of the International Forum on Drug and Alcohol Testing (IFDAT).
Engaging Speaker
Faye is a sought-after speaker on drug and alcohol testing issues, particularly cannabis, providing concise and accurate information and strategy on policy. In 2019 alone, she has spoken (or is scheduled to speak) at:
Results Driven Litigator
Faye not only advises clients, she backs up her advice by defending her clients in court. Faye approaches each case with a pragmatic results-based mindset, engaging in early evaluation and strategy development. She develops each case with an eye for early resolution in her client’s favor, while simultaneously aggressively preparing for trial. Faye is national trial and appellate counsel for many large drug-testing laboratories, service agents and employers. Her in-depth knowledge of the science as well as the standards of care in drug testing allows to her craft effective defenses and to work closely with industry experts to create favorable outcomes.
Selected Litigation Matters
Beck vs. USFDA, et al; (OR). Obtained dismissal of clinical laboratory testing claims, establishing that there is no duty regarding specimen remnants.
Stinnett v. Delta Air Lines, et al.; (NY). Obtained multiple dismissals of donor’s state law negligence, discrimination, employment claims as well as federal claims (ADA and employment) resulting from a regulated workplace drug test, establishing that a laboratory’s duty was restricted to accuracy in testing.
Morrison vs. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al; (NV). Affirmed on appeal (9th Cir.), cert denied. Obtained summary judgment, establishing the claims were time-barred and establishing the accuracy of HIV testing.
Valle vs. Clinical Reference Laboratory, et al; (MD). Obtained dismissal of wrongful termination claim, holding that a drug testing laboratory performing workplace drug testing was not donor’s employer and could not be liable for wrongful discharge.
Walls vs. Arkansas Medical Laboratory, et al; (AR). Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s negligence, defamation, outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference claims arising from a workplace drug test, holding that donor’s claims had no factual basis.
Barnes v. Omega Laboratories, Inc.; (MS). Obtained summary judgement on donor claims of negligence and defamation in hair testing, holding that the evidence demonstrated the laboratory’s results were accurate and valid.
Turner vs. Hirschbach Motor Lines; (IL). Affirmed on appeal (7th Cir.). Obtained summary judgment on a donor’s race discrimination claim, holding that employer’s failure to hire donor after a positive DOT test did not evidence racial discrimination.
Patterson, et al vs. Marian Catholic High School, et al; (IL). Affirmed on appeal (7th Cir.). Obtained dismissal on claims of race discrimination in hair testing.
Sandoval and Ann Marie Sandoval vs. DISA, Inc., et al; (TX). Obtained dismissal of donor workplace drug test claims, holding that the laboratory did not owe a duty to donor.
Moreno vs. ODACS, Inc.; (OH). Successfully established that federal law requires that a laboratory not make a federally regulated specimen available for DNA testing.
Knox v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al; (V.I.). Affirmed on appeal (3rd Cir.). Obtained summary judgment holding that a laboratory drug test does not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.; (TX). Affirmed on appeal (5th Cir.). Established no duty of care is owed by a laboratory to a donor when performing a workplace drug test.