Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

The Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the oldest national research laboratory in the United States. Operated by the University of California in coordination with the U.S. Department of Energy, the Laboratory conducted unclassified research on human genetic makeup, breast cancer, astrophysics, and nuclear science, among other subjects. For years hundreds of employees gave blood samples as part of routine tests for hiring and subsequently during employment. One such employee, Vertis Ellis, worked as an administrative assistant for Lawrence.

Late in 1994, Ellis opened the large envelope containing her medical records from work. Inside she found indications that the laboratory had conducted syphilis tests on her without her knowledge on several occasions during company exams over the previous 29 years. Upon inquiry to Lawrence, laboratory officials acknowledged testing the blood and urine samples of its employees for syphilis, the sickle cell trait, and pregnancy under the guidance and approval of the U.S. Department of Energy but claimed most such testing had ceased. Neither Ellis nor others had either given authorization for such tests or received results.

In September of 1995, Marya S. Norman-Bloodsaw, Ellis, and six other employees filed a class action suit in district court on behalf of all past and present Lawrence employees subjected to such medical tests. Among those named in the suit were the laboratory, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Regents of the University of California. The employees claimed that the testing of their blood and urine samples for syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy occurred without their knowledge or consent, and without any later notification that the tests had been conducted. The employees alleged several legal violations by Lawrence. First, they charged that Lawrence failed to provide adequate safeguards to protect the test results from being known to others. Secondly, that only black employees were tested for sickle cell trait and only female employees tested for pregnancy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thirdly, the employees argued the testing violated the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) since the tests were neither job-related nor consistent with a business need. Most important constitutionally, the testing, collecting and maintaining the results of the testing, and failing to provide adequate safeguards against disclosure of the results violated their right to privacy under the federal and California constitutions.

In September of 1996, the district court in San Francisco ruled the statute of limitations negated all claims. The court also disagreed with the employees' arguments on their merits, including the lack of demonstration of harm under Title VII. Although the government had failed to identify any "undisputed legitimate governmental purpose" for the three tests, any intrusions resulting from the testing were only minimal. This finding was based on strong similarity between the subjects covered by the medical questionnaire and the three tests, and comparison to the "overall intrusiveness" of "a full-scale physical examination." The federal district judge found that the employees had no proof of any connection between the discontinued secret tests and their employment conditions, either in the past or future.

In dismissing the case, Judge Vaughn Walker concluded, "The three tests in question were administered as part of a comprehensive medical examination to which plaintiffs had consented." The employees next appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.