## Facts

- Claudia Jenkins was hired in August 1993 as a “health worker” at a women’s health clinic.
- The written health-worker job description required employees to “demonstrate a cervical self-examination” as part of the clinic’s “self-help” approach.
- Jenkins signed a document acknowledging she read and understood the job description and its requirements.
- In September 1993, Jenkins refused instructions at a self-help session to disrobe and perform a cervical self-examination and was told participation was required for her job.
- Jenkins sought to avoid self-help sessions by applying for a different position and began working as an intake clerk in November 1993.
- Jenkins and another employee suggested alternatives (e.g., mannequins or private self-examinations), but management rejected them.
- Workplace tensions arose; the Center terminated Jenkins in December 1993, stating performance-based reasons.
- Jenkins sued, including a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on an alleged invasion of her California constitutional right to privacy.
- The trial court summarily adjudicated all claims except the privacy-based wrongful-termination claim, and the Center sought writ relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Jenkins could maintain a wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim predicated on an alleged violation of the California constitutional right to privacy arising from a job-related self-examination demonstration requirement.
2. Whether the denial of summary adjudication on that claim warranted writ relief to prevent trial on a nonactionable cause of action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and directed the superior court to grant summary adjudication for the Center on the remaining wrongful-termination/constitutional-privacy claim.
- The court held Jenkins could not establish an actionable invasion of her state constitutional privacy rights on the undisputed facts.
- The court concluded that, without an underlying constitutional privacy violation, the public-policy wrongful-termination claim failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Writ review may be appropriate when denial of summary judgment or summary adjudication would force trial on a claim that fails as a matter of law.
- A California constitutional privacy claim requires a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and a serious invasion; mere offensiveness or lesser intrusiveness is insufficient.
- An employee’s informed, voluntary acceptance of job duties and written acknowledgment of an intimate requirement may negate a reasonable expectation of privacy as to that specific workplace practice.
- Context matters in evaluating seriousness and justification; an intimate practice tied to an employer’s specialized medical/educational mission, applied in a limited setting, may be justified and not constitutionally wrongful.
- A wrongful termination claim based on public policy requires an actual violation of the identified constitutional or statutory policy; absent a violation, the claim is nonactionable.

## Conclusion

The court ordered summary adjudication because the clinic’s self-examination demonstration requirement—accepted by the employee with prior notice and tied to the clinic’s mission—did not constitute a serious, actionable invasion of California constitutional privacy capable of supporting a public-policy wrongful-termination claim.


Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Superior Ct., 52 Cal. App. 4th 1234, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 187 (Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1997)