## Facts

- Upper Deck hired Janet Kraslawsky in 1991 as an executive secretary after a pre-employment medical exam and urinalysis; she disclosed medications and was hired after confirming documentation.
- Upper Deck maintained a written suspicion-based drug and alcohol testing policy permitting urinalysis when the company had reasonable cause to suspect intoxication; Kraslawsky signed a consent form acknowledging the policy.
- In January 1993, two managers reported observations that Upper Deck claimed suggested Kraslawsky appeared under the influence; HR and management ordered a reasonable-cause test that day.
- Kraslawsky denied intoxication and asserted she was performing her duties and had normal conversations with the managers.
- Deposition testimony suggested the managers believed she might be ill or experiencing “female problems,” and did not state at the time that they suspected drug or alcohol impairment.
- About a week earlier, Kraslawsky objected to a change eliminating paid overtime for secretaries and refused to work unpaid overtime.
- Kraslawsky refused the urinalysis and was terminated the next day.
- She sued for (1) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Issues

1. In a private employer’s suspicion-based drug-testing program, is the existence of reasonable cause to demand a particular urinalysis relevant to a California constitutional privacy claim?
2. Did the summary-judgment record eliminate any triable issue as to reasonable cause (and thus defeat the privacy and derivative wrongful-termination claims)?
3. Did ordering the test and terminating Kraslawsky for refusing it constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct supporting IIED?

## Decision

- Summary judgment on the privacy claim was reversed because reasonable cause was relevant to the privacy analysis and the employee produced evidence creating a triable issue of fact on whether reasonable cause existed.
- Summary judgment on wrongful termination in violation of public policy was reversed because it was premised on the absence of an actionable privacy violation, and the privacy claim survived.
- Summary judgment on IIED was affirmed because the employer’s conduct, taken pursuant to a workplace policy, was not shown to be “outrageous,” and the employee produced no contrary evidence raising a triable issue.

## Legal Principles

- A California constitutional privacy claim requires balancing (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) the seriousness of the invasion, and (3) the defendant’s countervailing legitimate interests.
- For suspicion-based workplace urinalysis, whether the employer actually had reasonable cause to suspect impairment in the specific instance is a material factor in the privacy balancing; application of a lawful policy can still be an actionable invasion if invoked without reasonable cause.
- On summary judgment, conflicting evidence about the basis for “reasonable cause” can create a triable issue of fact precluding judgment as a matter of law.
- A wrongful-termination claim grounded in public policy may proceed when the underlying public-policy violation (here, alleged invasion of privacy) presents triable issues.
- IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct; implementing a drug-testing policy and terminating an employee for refusing testing, without additional egregious facts, does not satisfy that standard as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer’s demand for a suspicion-based urinalysis can violate California’s constitutional privacy protections if not supported by reasonable cause, and conflicting evidence on that point required trial; the related wrongful-termination claim was reinstated, but the IIED claim failed for lack of outrageous conduct.


Kraslawsky v. Upper Deck Co., 56 Cal. App. 4th 179 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)