## Facts

- A California law firm hired Lauren (Laura) Smedley as an associate in April 1990; partners soon learned she was lesbian.
- Kenneth Ward, the partner overseeing associates, told Smedley around September 1990 that sexual preference should not be a topic initiated at firm social events and later wrote that, given the firm’s clientele, it would not be appropriate to discuss lesbian rights, groups, or activities.
- Smedley held a leadership role in the Bay Area Lesbian Feminist Bar Association and claimed Ward’s statements caused her to curtail leadership and avoid discussing sexual-orientation issues at firm functions out of fear of termination.
- A legal journal published an article identifying Smedley as a leader of the association, naming the firm, and quoting her about lesbian attorneys being known at work and helping others address discrimination.
- About a month after the article’s publication, the firm terminated Smedley (April 1991).
- Smedley sued, asserting (among other claims) a violation of California Labor Code § 1101 (employer restrictions on political activity) and claims seeking emotional-distress damages.
- On pretrial motions, Smedley moved for summary judgment on the § 1101 claim; defendants moved to dismiss or limit emotional-distress-based claims and to compel a psychological examination.

## Issues

1. Whether undisputed facts established, as a matter of law, that defendants made or enforced a “rule, regulation, or policy” controlling Smedley’s protected political activity in violation of California Labor Code § 1101 and terminated her because of that activity.
2. Whether emotional-distress claims should be dismissed or limited and whether defendants were entitled to a psychological examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.

## Decision

- The court denied Smedley’s motion for summary judgment on the § 1101 claim.
- The court held that factual disputes remained regarding whether Ward’s statements and letter amounted to an employer “rule, regulation, or policy,” whether the conduct at issue qualified as protected political activity under § 1101 in the circumstances presented, and whether her political activity caused her termination.
- The court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part as to emotional-distress theories, narrowing claims consistent with plaintiff’s concessions.
- The court ordered a Rule 35 psychological examination because Smedley intended to present evidence of emotional harm, placing her mental condition in controversy.

## Legal Principles

- California Labor Code § 1101 prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing rules, regulations, or policies that forbid or control employees’ political activities or affiliations.
- Advocacy for gay and lesbian rights, particularly in the employment context, can constitute “political activity” for purposes of § 1101, but application may depend on the specific conduct and context.
- On summary judgment, the court must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; where statements and circumstances permit competing inferences about the existence of a § 1101 “policy” and causation, the claim is for the factfinder.
- A plaintiff’s intent to offer evidence of mental or emotional harm can place mental condition “in controversy,” supporting a psychological examination for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.

## Conclusion

The court declined to resolve the § 1101 claim as a matter of law because the alleged workplace restrictions and the causal connection to termination presented triable fact questions, while it narrowed emotional-distress theories and required a Rule 35 psychological examination based on plaintiff’s asserted emotional damages.


Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, Hastings & Dodson, 820 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Cal. 1993)