Santelli v. Electro-Motive
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18418, 188 F.R.D. 306, 1999 WL 635449 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege by seeking compensatory damages for 'garden-variety' emotional distress, such as humiliation and embarrassment, provided the plaintiff does not seek to introduce evidence of their medical treatment, specific symptoms, or psychological diagnoses.
Facts:
- Mary Santelli sued her employer, Electro-Motive, for sex discrimination and retaliation after being denied certain welding positions.
- Santelli's lawsuit included a claim for damages resulting from 'mental distress.'
- During her deposition, Santelli testified that she sought compensation for emotional distress caused by the alleged discrimination and had seen a psychotherapist for treatment.
- In response to Santelli's testimony, Electro-Motive sought to obtain her medical records, including records of psychotherapy, alcohol and drug treatment, and HIV testing.
- To prevent disclosure, Santelli's attorney represented to the court that her claim for damages would be limited to humiliation and embarrassment, and not for emotional distress that required medical care or treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Santelli sued Electro-Motive in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for violations of Title VII.
- During discovery, Electro-Motive filed a motion to compel the production of Santelli's medical and psychotherapy records.
- A Magistrate Judge denied Electro-Motive's motion to compel, based on Santelli's representation that she was limiting her emotional distress claim.
- The Magistrate Judge also issued an order precluding Santelli from introducing evidence of any emotional distress that necessitated medical treatment.
- Electro-Motive filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's order, bringing the issue before the District Court Judge for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a Title VII employment discrimination case waive the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege by making a claim for emotional distress damages when that claim is explicitly limited to humiliation and embarrassment and excludes any evidence of medical treatment, symptoms, or conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennelly, District Judge
No. A plaintiff who limits an emotional distress claim to compensation for humiliation and embarrassment, while forgoing any claim for distress that necessitated medical care, does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege. By narrowing the claim in this way, the plaintiff avoids putting their specific mental condition or the substance of their treatment at issue. The court reasoned that while a party waives the privilege by injecting their psychological treatment, symptoms, or conditions into a case, Santelli was doing neither. Her claim was limited to the intrinsic negative emotions resulting from the defendant's alleged conduct, and she was precluded from introducing evidence about her therapy, diagnoses, or specific symptoms like sleeplessness or depression. Because the communications with her psychotherapist were therefore no longer relevant, or only barely so, the privilege established in Jaffee v. Redmond remains intact. The court did, however, allow discovery of the dates of treatment and the identity of the psychotherapists, as this information is not privileged and could potentially lead to relevant evidence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant ambiguity left open by the Supreme Court in Jaffee regarding the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court establishes a middle-ground approach, distinguishing between 'garden-variety' emotional distress claims and those alleging a specific, diagnosable psychological injury. This ruling provides a strategic framework for plaintiffs in discrimination cases, allowing them to seek damages for humiliation and embarrassment without surrendering their right to medical privacy. It forces plaintiffs to choose between seeking potentially higher damages based on evidence of severe emotional trauma (which requires waiving the privilege) and a more limited recovery that protects their confidential therapeutic relationships.
Unlock the full brief for Santelli v. Electro-Motive