Norman-Bloodsaw

Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Good Law
135 F.3d 1260·98 Daily Journal DAR 1215·1998 WL 39209·13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1121·7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1395
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 3, 1998No. 96-16526California8,207 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

This appeal involves the question whether a clerical or administrative worker who undergoes a general employee health examination may, without his knowledge, be tested for highly private and sensitive medical and genetic information such as syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is a research institution jointly operated by state and federal agencies. Plaintiffs-appellants, present and former employees of Lawrence, allege that in the course of their mandatory employment entrance examinations and on subsequent occasions, Lawrence, without their knowledge or consent, tested their blood and urine for intimate medical conditions — namely, syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy. Their complaint asserts that this testing violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and their right to privacy as guaranteed by both the United States and State of California Constitutions. The district court granted the defendants-appellees’ motions for dismissal, judgment on the pleadings, and summary judgment on all of plaintiffs-appellants’ claims. We affirm as to the ADA claims, but reverse as to the Title VII and…

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.