From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Losing v. Food Lion, LLC
North Carolina Court of Appeals
648 S.E.2d 261 (2007)
Mervyn D. Losing (plaintiff) worked for Food Lion, LLC (defendant) and was drug tested. Losing’s test returned as substituted, meaning the sample was not human urine. Food Lion retested the sample and confirmed the result. Food Lion’s substance-abuse policy considered a substituted urine sample as testing positive. Losing was then fired for failing a drug test under Food Lion’s zero-tolerance policy. However, Losing exercised his right to a retest, which returned as negative. Food Lion admitted that the initial result was a false positive and reinstated Losing. Subsequently, Losing sued Food Lion and his supervisor, Robert Jones (defendant), for defamation. Losing claimed that Jones made statements about his failed drug test to his coworkers, including that he tested positive, substituted nonhuman urine in the drug test, and was fired for failing the drug test. Losing argued that his drug test was not completed until he exercised his right to the retest, which found the original result was a false positive. However, the evidence showed that, under the terms of Food Lion’s substance-abuse policy, Losing failed a drug test. Although the initial test result was ultimately a false positive, a substituted sample was a failed test under Food Lion’s policy. Losing also claimed that Jones repeated the statement of Brian Sloan, an employee, telling another employee to use Losing’s attorney because the attorney could get you off for a failed a drug test. Food Lion moved for summary judgment, arguing that Losing did not establish a prima facie case for defamation. The trial court granted Food Lion’s motion for summary judgment with prejudice. Losing appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wynn, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 553,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 553,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.