Williams v. BHI Energy I Power Services LLC

Background

Marilyn Williams was employed by BHI as a Field Administrator Manager at Xcel Energy’s nuclear facility in Monticello, Minnesota. Xcel selected her for a random drug test, which initially tested positive for a marijuana metabolite. Williams said she believed the result came from a weight-loss tea advertised as free of tetrahydrocannabinol. Xcel placed her unescorted facility access on a temporary administrative hold, but BHI terminated her employment the same day as the initial positive test. A later retest confirmed the positive result.

Williams brought one claim under Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA). She alleged that BHI failed to give her written notice of her right to explain the positive test, terminated her based on an initial unconfirmed positive test, and terminated her without first giving her an opportunity to complete a counseling or rehabilitation program.

BHI’s Preemption Argument

BHI moved for summary judgment, arguing that federal law governing nuclear facilities preempted Williams’s DATWA claims. The court considered both field preemption, which applies when federal law occupies an area of regulation, and conflict preemption, which applies when state and federal requirements cannot be followed together or when state law obstructs federal objectives.

The court rejected field preemption. It reasoned that DATWA is a generally applicable worker-protection law enacted for purposes other than radiation safety. The court also focused on the distinction between Xcel, the nuclear licensee, and BHI, its contractor. Federal fitness-for-duty regulations apply to certain contractors only when they implement a fitness-for-duty program or program element on which a licensee relies. The undisputed evidence showed that Xcel used its own program, did not rely on a BHI program, had never approved a BHI program, and did not treat BHI as an approved fitness-for-duty contractor. BHI’s own chief operating officer testified that BHI did not have a fitness-for-duty program in its nuclear division.

The court also rejected conflict preemption. It concluded that BHI was not directly required by federal law to comply with the federal fitness-for-duty regulations. Even if the regulations applied to BHI, the court found that the state and federal requirements could be satisfied at the same time. Federal law required temporary withdrawal of access after the initial positive test and required at least a 14-day loss of access after a confirmed positive test, while DATWA regulated the separate question of terminating employment. The court found no actual conflict and no obstacle to federal objectives.

Williams’s Partial Summary-Judgment Motion

Williams moved for partial summary judgment on BHI’s liability. The parties disputed whether BHI fired her because of a zero-tolerance drug policy or because she could no longer maintain unescorted access to Xcel’s facility. The court found that dispute genuine but not material.

The court held that the dispute did not affect liability under DATWA. BHI did not dispute that it failed to give Williams written notice of her right to explain the positive test, terminated her on the same day as the initial unconfirmed positive test, and did not provide an opportunity to participate in a rehabilitation program. The court reasoned that, even if BHI’s stated reason was loss of facility access, that loss flowed directly from the positive test and was not independent of it.

Disposition

Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that BHI’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED, holding that Williams’s DATWA claims were not preempted by federal law. The court ordered that Williams’s motion for partial summary judgment be GRANTED and held BHI liable for violating subdivisions 6, 10(a), and 10(b) of Minnesota Statute section 181.953. The order did not state a separate disposition concerning damages.