Legal Opinion
Semore v. Pool
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 2, 1990No. E006138PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1092Opinion
HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.—
In this case, we find that the right of privacy in the California Constitution protects Californians from actions of private employers as well as government agencies.
Accordingly, when a private employee is terminated for refusing to take a random drug test, he may invoke the public policy exception to the at-will termination doctrine to assert a violation of his constitutional right of privacy.
We therefore find that the trial court erred in granting a demurrer without leave to amend to causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- O'CONNOR v. OrtegaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- McGonigle v. CombsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Robert Landon v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
- Angela Schlacter-Jones v. General Telephone of California Patricia Leathers Carol Todd Doug BartripCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- CHARLES J. VACANTI v. State Comp. Ins. FundCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.