Major privacy rights case impacts stress claims

If you are in San Mateo, San Francisco or Alameda Counties or points north, a new Appeals Court decision has finally given you the same privacy rights as everyone else in California. The result: California employers must be very careful about how they treat employees who claim stress. In Pettus v. Cole, Mr. Pettus was a 22 year employee who was advised by his doctor to take a 30-day disability leave for stress. The company required the employee to be examined by its own psychiatrists, and the court upheld the right of the company to do that. It was what the company did with the information that was illegal.

The company doctors agreed Mr. Pettus should be given the leave. Their reports also mentioned that he had expressed violent thoughts about two of his co-workers, but the doctors said given his background and history, such thoughts were normal letting off steam. The doctors' reports stated that he admitted some years before he "almost became an alcoholic," but in their opinion, he did not have a drinking problem.

Based on this information, the employer hired security guards and ordered Mr. Pettus into a 30-day alcohol rehabilitation program. This was in direct conflict with standard DuPont policy on handling substance abuse. When he refused to enter rehab, he was fired.

When it's put this starkly, we can predict the Court's opinion. The Court held that forcing him into a program was an invasion of his right to privacy. If he had a drinking problem, he has the right to deal with it as he wants. The employer's only interest is what happens at work.

Why Did This Happen?
Rita Risser's Perspective:

What is interesting from my perspective is why did this happen? How could a good company like DuPont make such a mistake? I believe one of the reasons was that people's emotions got in the way of clear-headed thinking.

You see, Mr. Pettus was a long-term employee, but in the last 6 years he had been transferred into 4 jobs in 3 different plants, trying to find a good fit. He wasn't happy with the way he was treated at one plant, had sued and lost. Five years later he was still complaining about it. He had recently been offered a promotion but wasn't able to master the computer, so he was not given the new job. He claimed this was racist. Then he came to work with a doctor's note saying he was stressed and needed a leave.

Most HR and legal people will throw up their hands at this one. They've had someone just like this in their organizations. These are the hardest cases to deal with. It is so tempting to latch on to any slip-up the employee makes and fire them for that. But this case says, don't be ruled by your emotions. Go by the book and the law.

Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402,
 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (rev. denied)

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.