Why a judge dismissed Mayfield's lawsuit against NASCAR

A federal judge ruled against Jeremy Mayfield in his case against NASCAR in relation to a failed drug test a little over a year ago.

 

Judge Graham C. Mullen listed these reasons for siding with NASCAR:

 

# Jeremy Mayfield signed Sprint Cup Series driver and owner agreements to compete in NASCAR in 2009, a competition membership and license application and that the agreements require "that both driver and car owner "abide by the NASCAR Substance Abuse Policy'' and that includes undergoing random drug testing.

 

# Mayfield waived his right to sue NASCAR when he signed those agreements, which state releases a person who signs it from suing NASCAR.

 

# Mayfield fails to state a claim for defamation. Judge notes: "This claim is covered by multiple waivers that (Mayfield) signed, furthermore this claim fails on additional grounds. (Mayfield and his lawyers) do not state a defamation claim because they fail to allege facts that show actual malice. (Mayfield and his lawyers) instead resort to the type of "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'' that the Supreme Court has held "will not do.''

 

# About Mayfield alleging that NASCAR violated the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act when they discriminated "against (him) by discharging or suspending him on the basis of his disabling condition (he said he tested positive because of a combination of Claritin-D and medicine for ADHD). The judge writes: "Mr. Mayfield, however, was neither a NASCAR employee nor a person with a disability under the PDPA; therefore his claim fails.''

 

# In regards to Mayfield claiming that NASCAR's Substance Abuse Policy is unfair because it "fails to specify which drugs are prohibited under the Policy, instead simply stating that the substances prohibited are "those substances that in NASCAR's determination, may affect adversely the safety and well-being' of all those involved.' The Judge notes: "Methampetamines (what NASCAR said Mayfield tested positive for more than once) are an illegal drug, and it goes without saying that they "may affect adversely the safety and well-being' of all those involved.''

 

# In regards to Mayfield's side claiming the lab (Aegis) that did the testing did not follow federal (SAMSHA) guidelines, the judge notes: "Plaintiffs (Mayfield's side) cannot point to any case law,  or SAMHSA or HHS document, requiring certified labs to follow the Guidelines when serving private employers. Plaintiff's own expert ... hedges when he discusses Aegis's obligations to follow the Guidelines.''

 

# Mayfield's side fails to state a claim for negligence. Judge writes: "Plaintiffs clearly released (NASCAR and other defendants) from any negligence claim arising out of the application of the Substance Abuse Policy. In addition, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for negligence because they do not allege any facts showing that Defendants breached their duty of care.''

 

 

 

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.