## Facts

- Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), operated by the Regents of the University of California under a federal contract, required new hires to undergo mandatory post-offer, pre-placement medical examinations.
- As part of the exams, employees completed medical questionnaires and provided blood and urine samples.
- Clerical and administrative employees alleged LBL tested their samples for syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy without notice, knowledge, or consent.
- Plaintiffs alleged race- and sex-linked targeting: sickle cell trait testing was disproportionately performed on Black employees, and pregnancy testing was performed on women.
- Plaintiffs alleged inadequate confidentiality practices that risked disclosure of sensitive medical information within the workplace.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under Title VII, the ADA, the federal constitutional right to privacy, and the California Constitution’s privacy provision.
- The district court disposed of all claims through dismissal, judgment on the pleadings, and summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs appealed, disputing, among other things, accrual of limitations periods and mootness of injunctive relief after LBL reportedly ceased some testing.

## Issues

1. Whether undisclosed testing of employee samples for syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy during mandatory entrance exams violates federal constitutional privacy protections.
2. Whether the same conduct violates the California constitutional right to privacy.
3. Whether alleged race- and sex-selective testing states a Title VII claim affecting terms and conditions of employment.
4. Whether the ADA prohibits the scope/content of post-offer, pre-employment medical examinations as pleaded.
5. Whether summary judgment was proper on statute of limitations grounds where plaintiffs alleged they did not know of the specific tests when performed.
6. Whether cessation of the testing mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

## Decision

- Affirmed dismissal of the ADA claims.
- Reversed dismissal/summary judgment on the Title VII claims and remanded.
- Reversed dismissal/summary judgment on the federal and California constitutional privacy claims and remanded.
- Held that genuine disputes of material fact existed on when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the specific tests for limitations purposes.
- Held the case was not moot as to prospective relief despite alleged cessation, based on voluntary cessation principles and continuing effects.

## Legal Principles

- Employees have a protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of highly sensitive medical information, and compelled collection/testing of bodily samples can implicate constitutional privacy protections.
- Testing for sexually transmitted disease, genetic traits associated with race, and pregnancy constitutes a significant intrusion, not a trivial one, when performed without informed notice or consent.
- Under federal and California privacy analyses, asserted employer interests (including workplace safety) must justify the intrusion, and tailoring/reasonableness may require factual development.
- Providing samples in a general employment medical exam does not, by itself, establish consent to undisclosed testing for highly sensitive conditions; notice and consent can present fact questions.
- Race- or sex-differentiated medical testing requirements or practices may constitute discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under Title VII.
- The ADA permits post-offer medical examinations and, as pleaded here, does not broadly restrict exam content; it primarily regulates confidentiality and use of obtained medical information.
- Accrual of employment-related privacy and discrimination claims may turn on when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged testing; the issue may be unsuitable for summary judgment if disputed.
- Voluntary cessation of challenged conduct generally does not moot claims where the defendant could resume the practice and plaintiffs allege continuing harm or risk.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that secret testing of employees’ entrance-exam samples for syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy could support Title VII and federal and state constitutional privacy claims, and that limitations and mootness defenses could not be resolved against plaintiffs on the existing record; it nevertheless affirmed dismissal of the ADA claims because the ADA, as applied, did not bar the testing’s content at the post-offer stage.


Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998)