Evidence Archives — LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. WILLIAMS

June 28, 2021October 20, 2024

FRCP 35 Exams Based on Emotional Distress (9th Circuit)

Under federal law, does a plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress place his/her mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35 exams? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE GENERAL RULE

If a plaintiff objects to a FRCP 35 exam, the court has discretion to enter an order compelling examination only if the employer can establish:

(A) that a physical or mental condition of the person sought to be examined is “in controversy,” and

(B) that “good cause” exists.

See Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 667 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Courts in jurisdictions throughout the country are divided on the issue as to whether a claim of emotional distress places the plaintiff’s mental condition at issue (in controversy). But the modern trend in courts is to increasingly find that it does not.

FRCP 35 EXAMS BASED ON EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: 9TH CIRCUIT

The general position of courts in the 9th Circuit appears to be that a claim for emotional distress damages, by itself, is not sufficient to place the plaintiff’s mental condition in controversy for purposes of FRCP 35(a). Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. 579, 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (referencing, Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 92-97 (S.D.Cal.1995) (thoroughly surveying the relevant case law, distinguishing several unconventional cases including Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, hastings & Dodson, 820 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D.Cal.1993), and determining not to set Smedly, inter alia, as precedent)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead, the trend for 9th Circuit courts is as follows:

[T]he movant must also demonstrate that (1) the plaintiff has pled a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff has alleged a specific mental or psychiatric injury; (3) the plaintiff has pled a claim for unusually severe emotional distress; (4) the plaintiff plans to offer expert testimony to support a claim of emotional distress and/or (5) the plaintiff has conceded that his or her mental condition is ” in controversy” for purposes of FRCP 35(a).

Id. (internal citation omitted).

These courts have further found that a Plaintiff merely seeking damages in excess of a million dollars for humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress does not justify a request for a mental examination. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. at 97.

GARDEN VARIETY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Thus, for example, a plaintiff seeking “garden variety emotional distress” damages in excess of one million dollars, pursuant to claims solely under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, may argue that he/she is not subject to FRCP 35 examination, because his/her mental condition is not in controversy (provided he/she does not satisfy the additional above mentioned requirements set forth in Ford v. Contra Costa County, 179 F.R.D. at 580 (N.D.Cal. 1998), supra); but whoever asserts this type argument should be prepared to fight it out in Court — the defendant(s) will likely file a motion.

LEARN MORE

If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

June 26, 2021October 20, 2024

Behind Closed Doors: WLAD & ESD Appeals

Under Washington State law, may an employment discrimination plaintiff use favorable findings from a previous unemployment benefits appeal against the associated defendant employer, when pursuing a claim under Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD)? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

A COMMON ISSUE

Occasionally, one of my employment discrimination clients will vigorously attempt to convince me that they received favorable findings against their employer during their unemployment benefits appeal conducted through the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings; and that the findings will help them win their subsequent discrimination lawsuit under WLAD. Unfortunately, I usually have bad news for those clients.

Stated differently, the issue is whether findings made by an administrative law judge (ALJ) during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing may be admitted in a separate employment discrimination lawsuit outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer?

WA STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

The Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) was created in 1939. Its mission is to “partner to connect employers and job seekers – supporting transitions to new jobs and empowering careers.”

If an individual applies for unemployment benefits through the ESD and is denied; then the individual can request an appeal. In that case, the ESD will forward the appeal to the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) which is not part of the ESD. The OAH will then assign an administrative law judge to hear the case.

TITLE 50 RCW

The Washington State laws relating to the ESD are contained in Title 50 RCW, and the relevant law states as follows:

Any finding, determination, conclusion, declaration, or final order made by the commissioner, or his or her representative or delegate, or by an appeal tribunal, administrative law judge, reviewing officer, or other agent of the department for the purposes of Title 50 RCW, shall not be conclusive, nor binding, nor admissible as evidence in any separate action outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between an individual and the individual’s present or prior employer before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts or was reviewed pursuant to RCW 50.32.120.

RCW 50.32.097 (emphasis and hyperlink added).

CONCLUSION

Findings made by an administrative law judge during a Washington State unemployment benefits appeal hearing are generally not admissible in a subsequent WLAD employment discrimination lawsuit (before an arbitrator, court, or judge) outside the scope of Title 50 RCW between the employee and the employee’s present or prior employer.

LEARN MORE

June 25, 2021October 20, 2024

Section 1983, Unofficial Custom, and Local Governmental Liability

Under Section 1983, may an individual bring a civil rights lawsuit against a city based upon allegations that the city engaged in an illegal custom — even if the custom was not officially established? Here’s my point of view.

Advertisement

UNOFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL CUSTOM

Local governmental entities may be sued under Section 1983 for “constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom,’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the entity’s official decisionmaking channels.” City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 121, 108 S. Ct. 915, 99 L. Ed. 2d 107, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 412 (1988) (internal citations omitted).

“Showing a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity is one way to establish municipal liability.” Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

EXAMPLE: CHEW v. GATES

In Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994) a police officer turned a police dog loose on Chew and it assaulted Chew directly causing injury; the city argued that the unofficial policy of using dogs to apprehend suspects was attributable only to the non-policymaking officers responsible for training the canine units and not the police chief or commission — policymaking officials.

The court found that “[a] city could not escape liability for the consequences of established and ongoing departmental policy regarding the use of force simply by permitting such basic policy decisions to be made by lower level officials who are not ordinarily considered policymakers.” Id. at 1445.

Furthermore, the court found that “if the city in fact permitted departmental policy regarding the use of canine force to be designed and implemented at lower levels of the department, a jury could, and should, nevertheless find that the policy constituted an established municipal ‘custom or usage’ regarding the use of police dogs for which the city is responsible.” Id. (referencing City of St. Louis, 485 U.S. at 127)

Thus, the court held that the city acted under color of law in injuring Chew.

CONCLUSION

Under § 1983, I believe an individual may bring a civil rights lawsuit against a city based upon allegations that the city engaged in an unofficial illegal custom.

LEARN MORE

March 8, 2021October 19, 2024

Definition of Prima Facie Case

Under Washington State laws, what is the definition of “prima facie case“? Here’s my point of view.

(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement

THE DICTIONARY

The term “prima facie” means “at first sight; on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1228 (8th ed. 2004). A “prima facie case” means: “1. The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption … [; or] 2. A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favor.” Id.

THE CASE LAW

The Washington State Supreme Court has declared, “* * * A ‘prima facie case’ is one where the evidence is sufficient to justify, but not to compel, an inference of liability, or, in other words, evidence to be weighed, but not necessarily to be accepted by a jury or other trier of fact.” Nopson v. City of Seattle, 33 Wn.2d 772, 812, 207 P.2d 674 (1949) (citing McCoy v. Courtney, 25 Wash.2d 956, 962, 172 P.2d 596, 600, 170 A.L.R. 603).

need help?

If you need help with your employment issue, then consider a consultation with an experienced employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.

-gw