Kraslawsky

Kraslawsky v. Upper Deck Co.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 538·56 Cal. App. 4th 179·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 297·97 Daily Journal DAR 8589·12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1789
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 2, 1997D021780California5,568 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

The Upper Deck Company terminated Janet Kraslawsky after Kraslawsky refused to take a urinalysis drug/alcohol test under Upper Deck’s reasonable cause drug testing program. Kraslawsky sued Upper Deck, alleging Upper Deck violated her privacy rights under the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Upper Deck on each of Kraslawsky’s claims. Kraslawsky appeals.

Kraslawsky does not challenge the constitutionality of Upper Deck’s suspicion-based testing program. Kraslawsky instead contends Upper Deck’s demand that she submit to a urinalysis test violated her state constitutional right to privacy because Upper Deck did not have reasonable cause to believe she was intoxicated. Upper Deck counters that (1) the existence of reasonable cause is not relevant to the constitutional privacy analysis, and (2) Kraslawsky did not proffer sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact on the reasonable cause issue.

We determine summary judgment was improper on Kraslawsky’s state constitutional privacy claim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.