California Employment Law Appellate Report - Employee Privacy
California Employment Law Appellate Report - Employee Privacy
Most recent employee privacy cases
In Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California, Cal.App.5th (Oct. 2, 2024), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) held that personal information need not be “confidential” or “private” to be protected from disclosure by the Information Practices Act (IPA).
Read more
Plaintiff, a professor with bipolar disorder, disclosed his condition to defendant. After a suicide attempt and hospitalization, Defendant engaged in the interactive process and provided an accommodation. Following student complaints regarding Plaintiff’s behavior and a faculty letter, Defendant shared the letter with media outlets, who linked it to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was placed on leave and terminated following an investigation. He sued, alleging FEHA violations and invasion of privacy. The trial court granted summary adjudication on some claims, and a jury found for defendant on the rest. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the court’s discovery, summary adjudication, trial, and post-trial rulings but not the jury verdict.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s interactive process and accommodation claims because the claims overlapped with the jury’s verdict on discrimination, which Plaintiff did not challenge. However, the court reversed dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim, holding that medical or employment information linked to Plaintiff need not be “confidential” or “private” to violate the IPA and that the faculty letter and a discussion about Plaintiff during a student-faculty meeting were potentially in violation. The court upheld the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, finding the requested communications were protected by the reporting privilege. It also upheld the denial of a retrial, finding Plaintiff forfeited the issue by not objecting to jury instructions he later alleged were defective. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney’s fees under Civil Code § 1798.48(b) in light of the reinstated privacy claim.
In Frayo v. Martin., Cal.App.5th (June 25, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) held that an employer did not violate the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) by terminating an employee for refusing a third-party COVID-19 test.
Read more
In 2021, Plaintiff informed defendant he was ill. Defendant, following its COVID-19 guidelines, requested a third-party administered test. Plaintiff refused, and Defendant ultimately terminated him. Plaintiff sued, alleging violations of CMIA § 56.20(b) and (c). The trial court found that Defendant did not ask Plaintiff to sign a medical release authorization (§ 56.20(b)) and did not possess his “medical information” (§ 56.20(c)), and sustained Defendant’s demurrer.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed. Citing Rossi v. Sequoia Union Elementary School (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 974, it rejected Plaintiff’s argument that refusing a COVID-19 test is equivalent to refusing to sign an authorization. The court declined to address whether the “necessary action” exemption in § 56.20(b) applied. Regarding the § 56.20(c) claim, the court held that the statute applies only to employers already possessing the employee’s medical information. Because Plaintiff conceded he never took the test, Defendant could not possess related medical information. The court declined to rule on whether the CMIA applies to individual co-defendants.