Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
135 F.3d 1260 (1998)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Marya Norman-Bloodsaw and others (the hires) (plaintiffs) received offers of employment for clerical positions at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Lawrence) (defendant), a research facility operated by the University of California pursuant to a federal contract. As a federal contractor, Lawrence was required to conduct pre-placement examinations of new employees. The hires received written notice that their job offers were conditioned upon completion of a medical exam. They had to complete written questionnaires, which inquired into whether they had any of 61 medical conditions, including sickle-cell anemia, venereal disease, and pregnancy, and supply blood and urine samples. The samples were tested without the hires’ knowledge, variously, for syphilis, sickle-cell trait, and pregnancy. This manner of testing was not considered sound medical or common employment practice. The hires did not suffer any adverse employment action based on the tests, nor did Lawrence disclose the results to any third party. The hires sued Lawrence for violations of the constitutional right to privacy and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the latter based on allegations that only Black individuals were tested for sickle-cell trait and only women were tested for pregnancy. The district court dismissed all claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, and the hires appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.