Vinson v. Superior Court
43 Cal.3d 833, 740 P.2d 404, 239 Cal. Rptr. 292 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit alleges ongoing severe emotional distress, they place their mental state in controversy and may be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination. However, the scope of the examination is not unlimited; inquiry into the plaintiff's sexual history is prohibited unless the defendant makes a specific showing of good cause and direct relevance, and the plaintiff's attorney is not entitled to be present at the examination.
Facts:
- In 1979, the plaintiff, a 59-year-old widow, interviewed for a job with a program directed by Grant and administered by the Peralta Community College District.
- During the interview, Grant allegedly made sexual comments about the plaintiff's appearance and anatomy.
- Grant allegedly implied that her hiring was conditioned on her acquiescence to his sexual advances, which she declined.
- Unbeknownst to Grant, the plaintiff was later hired by the college district for a different position within the same program.
- Upon discovering her employment, Grant had her transferred to a payroll position for which she had no training.
- Shortly thereafter, Grant terminated the plaintiff's employment.
- The plaintiff alleged that as a result of these actions, she suffered continuing emotional distress, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, and other psychological injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a civil suit in California superior court (trial court) against Peralta Community College District and Grant, alleging sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants filed a motion in the trial court to compel the plaintiff to undergo a psychological examination.
- Plaintiff opposed the motion or, in the alternative, requested a protective order to prohibit inquiry into her sexual history and to permit her attorney's presence.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for the examination without any of the limitations requested by the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal denied the plaintiff's petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and severe emotional distress, must a plaintiff submit to a mental examination that includes inquiry into her past sexual history, and must her attorney be allowed to attend?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. While a plaintiff who places her mental state in controversy by alleging severe emotional distress must submit to a mental examination for which the defendant shows good cause, the scope of that examination must be limited to exclude inquiries into her sexual history unless the defendant makes a specific showing of relevance and necessity, and No, the plaintiff's attorney is not required to be present during the examination. A plaintiff puts her mental state "in controversy" under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032 by alleging ongoing mental and emotional ailments, which establishes good cause for an examination. However, initiating such a lawsuit does not constitute a waiver of the plaintiff's constitutional right to privacy regarding her sexual history. To intrude upon this protected zone, a defendant must establish specific facts showing the inquiry is directly relevant and essential to a fair resolution of the case, a standard not met by generalized assertions. Following the precedent of Edwards v. Superior Court, the presence of counsel is not required because it could interfere with the clinical nature of the examination and transform it into an adversarial proceeding. A plaintiff's privacy can be adequately protected by court orders limiting the scope of the examination and by allowing the examination to be audio recorded.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial balance between a defendant's discovery rights and a plaintiff's privacy rights in sexual harassment cases. By allowing a mental examination but severely restricting its scope, the court prevents discovery from being used as a tool for intimidation or harassment, which could otherwise deter plaintiffs from bringing meritorious claims. The decision affirms that a claim for emotional distress opens the door to psychiatric evaluation but does not give the defendant a license to conduct a fishing expedition into the plaintiff's private sexual life. This bifurcated approach—allowing the exam but protecting privacy—creates an important precedent for handling sensitive discovery in civil rights and personal injury litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Vinson v. Superior Court