Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In reviewing the case, the appeals court considered the statute of limitations issue first. The district court had ruled that the limitations period began at the time the blood and urine samples were taken. However, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the court, asserted that the general federal rule for initiating limitation periods was based on when an individual becomes aware of an injury. Reinhardt disagreed with the district court's finding that the employees had reason to know of the actual nature of the medical tests simply by submitting to the examinations. Reinhardt reversed the district court's limitations finding.

Reinhardt then examined the issue of due process right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution. Reinhardt applied the "balancing test" to the facts of the case. He balanced the government's interest in conducting these particular tests against the employees' expectations of privacy. Reinhardt found no state compelling interests in tests which had little bearing on a person's ability to perform the work. Reinhardt also observed that the privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal information clearly included confidentiality of a person's medical record. Thus, Reinhardt reversed the district court decision to dismiss the claims on the ground that any privacy violation was minimal. Reinhardt held the tests were indeed search violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Reinhardt also examined the right to privacy issue under Article I of the California Constitution. Three elements must be established to bring a case under the California Constitution. These elements are presence of a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy by the individual under the circumstances, and conduct by the defendant amounting to a "serious invasion " of the protected privacy. The district court had previously ruled employees "could not proceed" with this allegation because of "undisputed facts" that the employees had completed a medical questionnaire at the time of the exam, consented to the pre-placement examination, and voluntarily given of blood and urine samples. Reinhardt ruled that the district court undervalued the seriousness of the tests and hence erred in dismissing the state constitutional privacy claim.

Reinhardt then considered the allegation of a Title VII violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Reinhardt wrote that Title VII prohibits discrimination not only in the "terms" and "conditions" of ongoing employment, but also in the "terms" and "conditions" under which individuals may obtain employment. In this case, the laboratory required black employees to unknowingly undergo a test for the sickle cell trait and for women, to unknowingly undergo a pregnancy test. Reinhardt found that the employment of women and blacks at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory was conditioned on unconstitutional invasions of privacy to which others were not subjected a violation of Title VII on the basis of race and sex discrimination.

On one point Reinhardt did agree with the district court. Reinhardt ruled that only those medical examinations occurring "on or after January 26, 1992," could potentially be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On that date the ADA had become applicable to public entities. Only two employees involved in the case had undergone testing after that date. Reinhardt held that the Americans with Disabilities Act did not limit the scope of such examinations to matters that are "job-related and consistent with business necessity." Therefore, dismissal of the ADA claims were proper.

Though Lawrence contended the case was moot because the issues involved were no longer occurring and the employees lacked any further interest in the tests outcome. Reinhardt asserted that mere voluntary discontinuation of allegedly illegal activity could not moot a case. Lawrence had even stated it might resume testing for intimate medical conditions at some time though not offering a reason why. Reinhardt concluded that a reasonable possibility existed that Lawrence would again conduct undisclosed medical testing of its employees for intimate medical conditions. Reinhardt granted an injunctive relief to the employees.