## Facts

- Louis Pettus worked for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) for about 22 years and sought stress-related disability leave.
- DuPont’s short-term disability policy required an employee seeking leave to undergo evaluation by doctors selected and paid by DuPont.
- DuPont arranged a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Alan R. Cole, who recommended additional evaluation by Dr. Kathleen Bell Unger; both understood the evaluations were for Pettus’s disability request.
- During the examinations, Pettus disclosed highly personal psychiatric, medical, and family information in a setting he viewed as confidential.
- The doctors sent DuPont detailed written reports containing diagnoses, impressions, extensive personal history, and observations suggesting possible alcohol-related issues.
- Pettus contended he did not sign a specific written authorization allowing disclosure of detailed psychiatric information to DuPont and believed any permitted disclosure should be limited to functional work-related conclusions (e.g., disability status and duration).
- DuPont relied heavily on the doctors’ information, concluded Pettus’s issues might be alcohol-related, and conditioned continued employment on enrollment in an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program.
- Pettus refused inpatient treatment, disputing that he was an alcoholic or that alcohol impaired his job performance.
- DuPont terminated Pettus for refusing to enroll.
- Pettus sued the doctors for CMIA violations and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; after Pettus’s case-in-chief in a bench trial, the trial court granted judgment for the doctors under Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8.
- Pettus sued DuPont for breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unauthorized use of medical information, and invasion of constitutional privacy; the trial court ultimately entered judgment for DuPont after DuPont’s case-in-chief.

## Issues

1. Whether psychiatrists conducting an employer-required, employer-paid psychiatric examination may disclose detailed medical information to the employer without the employee’s specific written authorization under the CMIA.
2. Whether the psychiatrists’ disclosures and DuPont’s use of the information stated a claim for invasion of privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution, including whether Pettus waived privacy by prior disclosures to DuPont.
3. Whether terminating an employee for refusing an employer-mandated inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program violates the employee’s state constitutional privacy rights and supports a wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed in significant part and remanded.
- The court held as a matter of law that Drs. Cole and Unger violated the CMIA by providing DuPont a detailed report of Pettus’s psychiatric examinations without a specific written authorization.
- The court held Pettus made a prima facie showing of invasion of privacy by the psychiatrists under the California Constitution, but remanded for further proceedings on defenses, including waiver and justification.
- As to DuPont, the court concluded DuPont’s demand that Pettus enter inpatient alcohol rehabilitation as a condition of employment could constitute an unjustified intrusion on constitutional privacy, particularly absent proof of alcoholism or alcohol-related work impairment.
- The court reversed the judgment for DuPont on privacy and related wrongful-termination theories and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The CMIA protects individually identifiable medical information obtained by licensed health-care providers, including psychiatrists performing employer-initiated examinations.
- Absent a statutory exception, disclosure of medical information to an employer requires the patient’s specific written authorization; employer payment for the exam does not substitute for authorization.
- For employer disability administration, limited functional information may be permissible, but disclosure of detailed psychiatric narratives, personal history, and diagnostic detail exceeds what may be shared without specific authorization.
- Psychiatric information is highly protected under the California Constitution; a plaintiff may establish a prima facie privacy invasion by showing a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious invasion.
- Once a prima facie invasion is shown, defendants must justify the intrusion with a sufficiently important interest and show the objective could not be achieved by less intrusive means.
- An employer mandate requiring inpatient medical treatment as a condition of employment can implicate autonomy privacy; absent adequate evidentiary support and consideration of less intrusive alternatives, the mandate may be unconstitutional and support a public-policy wrongful termination claim.
- Voluntary prior disclosure of similar information to the employer may support a waiver defense, typically requiring factual development.

## Conclusion

The court held that psychiatrists retained for an employer’s disability evaluation violated the CMIA by sending the employer detailed psychiatric reports without the employee’s specific written authorization, and it recognized potentially actionable constitutional privacy claims arising from both the disclosure of psychiatric information and an employer’s coercive demand for inpatient rehabilitation as a condition of continued employment, remanding for further proceedings on defenses and remedies.


Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)