OPINION OF THE COURT

[560 U.S. 750]

Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the assertion by a government employer of the right, in circumstances to be described, to read text messages sent and received on a pager the employer owned and issued to an employee. The employee contends that the privacy of the messages is protected by the ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” found in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). Though the case touches issues of far-reaching significance, the Court concludes it can be resolved by settled principles determining when a search is reasonable.

I

A

The city of Ontario (City) is a political subdivision of the State of California. The case arose out of incidents in 2001 and 2002 when respondent Jeff Quon was employed by the Ontario Police Department (OPD). He was a police sergeant and member of OPD’s Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team. The City, OPD, and OPD’s Chief, Lloyd Scharf, are petitioners here. As will be discussed, two respondents share the last name Quon. In this opinion “Quon” refers to Jeff Quon, for the relevant events mostly revolve around him.

In October 2001, the City acquired 20 alphanumeric pagers capable of sending and receiving text messages. Arch Wireless Operating Company *222provided wireless service for the pagers. Under the City’s service contract with Arch Wireless, each pager was allotted a limited number of characters

[560 U.S. 751]

sent or received each month. Usage in excess of that amount would result in an additional fee. The City issued pagers to Quon and other SWAT Team members in order to help the SWAT Team mobilize and respond to emergency situations.

Before acquiring the pagers, the City announced a “Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy” (Computer Policy) that applied to all employees. Among other provisions, it specified that the City “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice. Users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 151, 152. In March 2000, Quon signed a statement acknowledging that he had read and understood the Computer Policy.

The Computer Policy did not apply, on its face, to text messaging. Text messages share similarities with e-mails, but the two differ in an important way. In this case, for instance, an e-mail sent on a City computer was transmitted through the City’s own data servers, but a text message sent on one of the City’s pagers was transmitted using wireless radio frequencies from an individual pager to a receiving station owned by Arch Wireless. It was routed through Arch Wireless’ computer network, where it remained until the recipient’s pager or cellular telephone was ready to receive the message, at which point Arch Wireless transmitted the message from the transmitting station nearest to the recipient. After delivery, Arch Wireless retained a copy on its computer servers. The message did not pass through computers owned by the City.

Although the Computer Policy did not cover text messages by its explicit terms, the City made clear to employees, including Quon, that the City would treat text messages the same way as it treated e-mails. At an April 18, 2002, staff meeting at which Quon was present, Lieutenant Steven Duke, the OPD officer responsible for the City’s contract

[560 U.S. 752]

with Arch Wireless, told officers that messages sent on the pagers “are considered e-mail messages. This means that [text] messages would fall under the City’s policy as public information and [would be] eligible for auditing.” App. 30. Duke’s comments were put in writing in a memorandum sent on April 29, 2002, by Chief Scharf to Quon and other City personnel.

Within the first or second billing cycle after the pagers were distributed, Quon exceeded his monthly text message character allotment. Duke told Quon about the overage, and reminded him that messages sent on the pagers were “considered e-mail and could be audited.” Id., at 40. Duke said, however, that “it was not his intent to audit [an] employee’s text messages to see if the overage [was] due to work related transmissions.” Ibid. Duke suggested that Quon could reimburse the City for the overage fee rather than have Duke audit the messages. Quon wrote a check to the City for the overage. Duke offered the same arrangement to other employees who incurred overage fees.

Over the next few months, Quon exceeded his character limit three or four times. Each time he reimbursed the City. Quon and another officer again incurred overage fees for their *223pager usage in August 2002. At a meeting in October, Duke told Scharf that he had become “ ‘tired of being a bill collector.’ ” Id., at 91. Scharf decided to determine whether the existing character limit was too low—that is, whether officers such as Quon were having to pay fees for sending work-related messages—or if the overages were for personal messages. Scharf told Duke to request transcripts of text messages sent in August and September by Quon and the other employee who had exceeded the character allowance.

At Duke’s request, an administrative assistant employed by OPD contacted Arch Wireless. After verifying that the City was the subscriber on the accounts, Arch Wireless provided the desired transcripts. Duke reviewed the transcripts

[560 U.S. 753]

and discovered that many of the messages sent and received on Quon’s pager were not work related, and some were sexually explicit. Duke reported his findings to Scharf, who, along with Quon’s immediate supervisor, reviewed the transcripts himself. After his review, Scharf referred the matter to OPD’s internal affairs division for an investigation into whether Quon was violating OPD rules by pursuing personal matters while on duty.

The officer in charge of the internal affairs review was Sergeant Patrick McMahon. Before conducting a review, McMahon used Quon’s work schedule to redact the transcripts in order to eliminate any messages Quon sent while off duty. He then reviewed the content of the messages Quon sent during work hours. McMahon’s report noted that Quon sent or received 456 messages during work hours in the month of August 2002, of which no more than 57 were work related; he sent as many as 80 messages during a single day at work; and on an average workday, Quon sent or received 28 messages, of which only 3 were related to police business. The report concluded that Quon had violated OPD rules. Quon was allegedly disciplined.

B

Raising claims under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., popularly known as the Stored Communications Act (SCA); and California law, Quon filed suit against petitioners in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Arch Wireless and an individual not relevant here were also named as defendants. Quon was joined in his suit by another plaintiff who is not a party before this Court and by the other respondents, each of whom exchanged text messages with Quon during August and September 2002: Jerilyn Quon, Jeff Quon’s then-wife, from whom he was separated; April Florio, an OPD employee with whom Jeff Quon was romantically involved; and Steve Trujillo, another member of the OPD SWAT Team.

[560 U.S. 754]

Among the allegations in the complaint was that petitioners violated respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights and the SCA by obtaining and reviewing the transcript of Jeff Quon’s pager messages and that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by turning over the transcript to the City.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted Arch Wireless’ motion for summary judgment on the SCA claim but denied petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (CD Cal. 2006). Relying on *224the plurality opinion in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 711, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987), the District Court determined that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of his text messages. Whether the audit of the text messages was nonetheless reasonable, the District Court concluded, turned on Chief Scharf's intent: “[I]f the purpose for the audit was to determine if Quon was using his pager to ‘play games’ and ‘waste time,’ then the audit was not constitutionally reasonable”; but if the audit’s purpose “was to determine the efficacy of the existing character limits to ensure that officers were not paying hidden work-related costs, ... no constitutional violation occurred.” 445 F. Supp. 2d, at 1146.

The District Court held a jury trial to determine the purpose of the audit. The jury concluded that Scharf ordered the audit to determine the efficacy of the character limits. The District Court accordingly held that petitioners did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It entered judgment in their favor.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (2008). The panel agreed with the District Court that Jeff Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages but disagreed with the District Court about whether the search was reasonable. Even though the search was conducted for “a legitimate work-related rationale,”

[560 U.S. 755]

the Court of Appeals concluded, it “was not reasonable in scope.” Id., at 908. The panel disagreed with the District Court’s observation that “there were no less-intrusive means” that Chief Scharf could have used “to verify the efficacy of the 25,000 character limit . . . without intruding on [respondents’] Fourth Amendment rights.” Id., at 908-909. The opinion pointed to a “host of simple ways” that the chief could have used instead of the audit, such as warning Quon at the beginning of the month that his future messages would be audited, or asking Quon himself to redact the transcript of his messages. Id., at 909. The Court of Appeals further concluded that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by turning over the transcript to the City.

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 554 F.3d 769 (2009). Judge Ikuta, joined by six other Circuit Judges, dissented. Id., at 774-779. Judge Wardlaw concurred in the denial of rehearing, defending the panel’s opinion against the dissent. Id., at 769-774.

This Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the City, OPD, and Chief Scharf challenging the Court of Appeals’ holding that they violated the Fourth Amendment. 558 U.S. 1090, 130 S. Ct. 1011, 175 L. Ed. 2d 617 (2009). The petition for certiorari filed by Arch Wireless challenging the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Arch Wireless violated the SCA was denied. USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. v. Quon, 558 U.S. 1091, 130 S. Ct. 1011, 175 L. Ed. 2d 618 (2009).

II

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” It is well settled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations. Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, *225387 U.S. 523, 530, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967). “The Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of

[560 U.S. 756]

persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the Government,” without regard to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing another function. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 613-614, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1989). The Fourth Amendment applies as well when the Government acts in its capacity as an employer. Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665, 109 S. Ct. 1384, 103 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1989).

The Court discussed this principle in O’Connor. There a physician employed by a state hospital alleged that hospital officials investigating workplace misconduct had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his office and seizing personal items from his desk and filing cabinet. All Members of the Court agreed with the general principle that “[individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer.” 480 U.S., at 717, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion); see also id., at 731, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 737, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). A majority of the Court further agreed that “ ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement,’ ” make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable for government employers. Id., at 725, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion) (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)); 480 U.S., at 732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (quoting same).

The O’Connor Court did disagree on the proper analytical framework for Fourth Amendment claims against government employers. A four-Justice plurality concluded that the correct analysis has two steps. First, because “some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable,” id., at 718, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714, a court must consider “ [t]he operational realities of the workplace” in order to determine whether an employee’s Fourth Amendment rights are implicated, id., at 717, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. On this view, “the question whether an employee has a reasonable

[560 U.S. 757]

expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” Id., at 718, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. Next, where an employee has a legitimate privacy expectation, an employer’s intrusion on that expectation “for noninvestiga-tory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” Id., at 725-726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714.

Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, outlined a different approach. His opinion would have dispensed with an inquiry into “operational realities” and would conclude “that the offices of government employees . . . are covered by Fourth Amendment protections as a general matter.” Id., at 731, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. But he would also have held “that government searches to retrieve work-related materials or to investigate violations of workplace rules—searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal in *226the private-employer context—do not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714.

Later, in the Von Raab decision, the Court explained that “operational realities” could diminish an employee’s privacy expectations, and that this diminution could be taken into consideration when assessing the reasonableness of a workplace search. 489 U.S., at 671, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639. In the two decades since O’Connor, however, the threshold test for determining the scope of an employee’s Fourth Amendment rights has not been clarified further. Here, though they disagree on whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy, both petitioners and respondents start from the premise that the O’Connor plurality controls. See Brief for Petitioners 22-28; Brief for Respondents 25-32. It is not necessary to resolve whether that premise is correct. The case can be decided by determining that the search was reasonable even assuming Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The two O’Connor approaches—the plurality’s and Justice Scalia’s—there-fore lead to the same result here.

[560 U.S. 758]

III

A

Before turning to the reasonableness of the search, it is instructive to note the parties’ disagreement over whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The record does establish that OPD, at the outset, made it clear that pager messages were not considered private. The City’s Computer Policy stated that “[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using” City computers. App. to Pet. for Cert. 152. Chief Scharf’s memo and Duke’s statements made clear that this official policy extended to text messaging. The disagreement, at least as respondents see the case, is over whether Duke’s later statements overrode the official policy. Respondents contend that because Duke told Quon that an audit would be unnecessary if Quon paid for the overage, Quon reasonably could expect that the contents of his messages would remain private.

At this point, were we to assume that inquiry into “operational realities” were called for, compare O’Connor, 480 U.S., at 717, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion), with id., at 730-731, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (opinion of Scalia, J.); see also id., at 737-738, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), it would be necessary to ask whether Duke’s statements could be taken as announcing a change in OPD policy, and if so, whether he had, in fact or appearance, the authority to make such a change and to guarantee the privacy of text messaging. It would also be necessary to consider whether a review of messages sent on police pagers, particularly those sent while officers are on duty, might be justified for other reasons, including performance evaluations, litigation concerning the lawfulness of police actions, and perhaps compliance with state open records laws. See Brief for Petitioners 35-40 (citing Cal. Public Records Act, Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 6250 et seq. (West 2008)). These matters would all bear on the legitimacy of an employee’s privacy expectation.

[560 U.S. 759]

The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communi*227cations made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer. The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear. See, e.g., Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928), overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). In Katz, the Court relied on its own knowledge and experience to conclude that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth. See id., at 360-361, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (Harlan, J., concurring). It is not so clear that courts at present are on so sure a ground. Prudence counsels caution before the facts in the instant case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices.

Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. As one amici brief notes, many employers expect or at least tolerate personal use of such equipment by employees because it often increases worker efficiency. See Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. 16-20. Another amicus points out that the law is beginning to respond to these developments, as some States have recently passed statutes requiring employers to notify employees when monitoring their electronic communications. See Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association 22 (citing Del. Code Ann., Tit. 19, § 705 (2005); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 31-48d (West 2003)). At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law’s treatment of them, will evolve.

Even if the Court were certain that the O’Connor plurality’s approach were the right one, the Court would have difficulty predicting how employees’ privacy expectations will be shaped by those changes or the degree to which society

[560 U.S. 760]

will be prepared to recognize those expectations as reasonable. See 480 U.S., at 715, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. Cell phone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification. That might strengthen the case for an expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cell phones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own. And employer policies concerning communications will of course shape the reasonable expectations of their employees, especially to the extent that such policies are clearly communicated.

Abroad holding concerning employees’ privacy expectations vis-a-vis employer-provided technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predicted. It is preferable to dispose of this case on narrower grounds. For present purposes we assume several propositions, arguendo: First, Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages sent on the pager provided to him by the City; second, petitioners’ review of the transcript constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and third, the principles applicable to a government employer’s search of an employ*228ee’s physical office apply with at least the same force when the employer intrudes on the employee’s privacy in the electronic sphere.

B

Even if Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, petitioners did not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment by obtaining and reviewing the transcripts. Although as a general matter, warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” there are “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” to that general rule. Katz, supra, at 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576. The Court has held that the “ ‘special needs’ ” of the workplace

[560 U.S. 761]

justify one such exception. O’Connor, 480 U.S., at 725, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion); id., at 732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 666-667, 109 S. Ct. 1384, 103 L. Ed. 2d 685.

Under the approach of the O’Connor plurality, when conducted for a “noninvestigatory, work-related purpos[e]” or for the “investi-gatio[n] of work-related misconduct,” a government employer’s warrantless search is reasonable if it is “ ‘justified at its inception’ ” and if “ ‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of’ ” the circumstances giving rise to the search. 480 U.S., at 725-726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. The search here satisfied the standard of the O’Connor plurality and was reasonable under that approach.

The search was justified at its inception because there were “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search [was] necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose.” Id., at 726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. As a jury found, Chief Scharf ordered the search in order to determine whether the character limit on the City’s contract with Arch Wireless was sufficient to meet the City’s needs. This was, as the Ninth Circuit noted, a “legitimate work-related rationale.” 529 F.3d, at 908. The City and OPD had a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees were not being forced to pay out of their own pockets for work-related expenses, or on the other hand that the City was not paying for extensive personal communications.

As for the scope of the search, reviewing the transcripts was reasonable because it was an efficient and expedient way to determine whether Quon’s overages were the result of work-related messaging or personal use. The review was also not “ ‘excessively intrusive.’ ” O’Connor, supra, at 726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion). Although Quon had gone over his monthly allotment a number of times, OPD requested transcripts for only the months of August and September 2002. While it may have been reasonable as well for OPD to review transcripts of all the months in which Quon exceeded his

[560 U.S. 762]

allowance, it was certainly reasonable for OPD to review messages for just two months in order to obtain a large enough sample to decide whether the character limits were efficacious. And it is worth noting that during his internal affairs investigation, McMahon redacted all messages Quon sent while off duty, a measure which reduced the intrusiveness of any further review of the transcripts.

*229Furthermore, and again on the assumption that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his messages, the extent of an expectation is relevant to assessing whether the search was too intrusive. See Von Raab, supra, at 671, 109 S. Ct. 1384, 103 L. Ed. 2d 685; cf. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 654-657, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995). Even if he could assume some level of privacy would inhere in his messages, it would not have been reasonable for Quon to conclude that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny. Quon was told that his messages were subject to auditing. As a law enforcement officer, he would or should have known that his actions were likely to come under legal scrutiny, and that this might entail an analysis of his on-the-job communications. Under the circumstances, a reasonable employee would be aware that sound management principles might require the audit of messages to determine whether the pager was being appropriately used. Given that the City issued the pagers to Quon and other SWAT Team members in order to help them more quickly respond to crises— and given that Quon had received no assurances of privacy—Quon could have anticipated that it might be necessary for the City to audit pager messages to assess the SWAT Team’s performance in particular emergency situations.

From OPD’s perspective, the fact that Quon likely had only a limited privacy expectation, with boundaries that we need not here explore, lessened the risk that the review would intrude on highly private details of Quon’s life. OPD’s audit of messages on Quon’s employer-provided pager was not nearly as intrusive as a search of his personal e-mail account

[560 U.S. 763]

or pager, or a wiretap on his home phone line, would have been. That the search did reveal intimate details of Quon’s life does not make it unreasonable, for under the circumstances a reasonable employer would not expect that such a review would intrude on such matters. The search was permissible in its scope.

The Court of Appeals erred in finding the search unreasonable. It pointed to a “host of simple ways to verify the efficacy of the 25,000 character limit . . . without intruding on [respondents’] Fourth Amendment rights.” 529 F.3d, at 909. The panel suggested that Scharf “could have warned Quon that for the month of September he was forbidden from using his pager for personal communications, and that the contents of all of his messages would be reviewed to ensure the pager was used only for work-related purposes during that timeframe. Alternatively, if [OPD] wanted to review past usage, it could have asked Quon to count the characters himself, or asked him to redact personal messages and grant permission to [OPD] to review the redacted transcript.” Ibid.

This approach was inconsistent with controlling precedents. This Court has “repeatedly refused to declare that only the ‘least intrusive’ search practicable can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Vernonia, supra, at 663, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564; see also, e.g., Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 837, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002); Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647, 103 S. Ct. 2605, 77 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1983). That rationale “could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search- *230and-seizure powers,” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557, n. 12, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976), because “judges engaged in post hoc evaluations of government conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the government might have been accomplished,” Skinner, 489 U.S., at 629, n. 9, 109 S. Ct. 1402, 103 L. Ed. 2d 639 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The analytic errors of the Court of Appeals in this case illustrate the necessity of

[560 U.S. 764]

this principle. Even assuming there were ways that OPD could have performed the search that would have been less intrusive, it does not follow that the search as conducted was unreasonable.

Respondents argue that the search was per se unreasonable in light of the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Arch Wireless violated the SCA by giving the City the transcripts of Quon’s text messages. The merits of the SCA claim are not before us. But even if the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that the SCA forbade Arch Wireless from turning over the transcripts, it does not follow that petitioners’ actions were unreasonable. Respondents point to no authority for the proposition that the existence of statutory protection renders a search per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And the precedents counsel otherwise. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 168, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008) (search incident to an arrest that was illegal under state law was reasonable); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43, 108 S. Ct. 1625, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988) (rejecting argument that if state law forbade police search of individual’s garbage the search would violate the Fourth Amendment). Furthermore, respondents do not maintain that any OPD employee either violated the law him-self or herself or knew or should have known that Arch Wireless, by turning over the transcript, would have violated the law. The otherwise reasonable search by OPD is not rendered unreasonable by the assumption that Arch Wireless violated the SCA by turning over the transcripts.

Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable under the approach of the O’Connor plurality. 480 U.S., at 726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. For these same reasons—that the employer had a legitimate reason for the search, and that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of that justification—the Court also concludes that the search would be “regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context” and would satisfy the approach of Justice

[560 U.S. 765]

Scalia’s concurrence. Id., at 732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. The search was reasonable, and the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary. Petitioners did not violate Quon’s Fourth Amendment rights.

C

Finally, the Court must consider whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Jerilyn Quon, Florio, and Trujillo, the respondents who sent text messages to Jeff Quon. Petitioners and respondents disagree whether a sender of a text message can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a message he knowingly sends to someone’s employer-provided pager. It is not necessary to resolve this question in order to dispose of the case, however. *231Respondents argue that because “the search was unreasonable as to Sergeant Quon, it was also unreasonable as to his correspondents.” Brief for Respondents 60 (some capitalization omitted; boldface deleted). They make no corollary argument that the search, if reasonable as to Quon, could nonetheless be unreasonable as to Quon’s correspondents. See id., at 65-66. In light of this litigating position and the Court’s conclusion that the search was reasonable as to Jeff Quon, it necessarily follows that these other respondents cannot prevail.

Because the search was reasonable, petitioners did not violate respondents’ Fourth Amendment rights, and the court below erred by concluding otherwise. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

Although I join the Court’s opinion in full, I write separately to highlight that the Court has sensibly declined to resolve whether the plurality opinion in O’Connor v. Ortega,

[560 U.S. 766]

480 U.S. 709, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987), provides the correct approach to determining an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. See ante, at 757, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 226. Justice Blackmun, writing for the four dissenting Justices in O’Connor, agreed with Justice Scalia that an employee enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office. 480 U.S., at 737, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. But he advocated a third approach to the reasonable expectation of privacy inquiry, separate from those proposed by the O’Connor plurality and by Justice Scalia, see ante, at 756-757, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 225-226. Recognizing that it is particularly important to safeguard “a public employee’s expectation of privacy in the workplace” in light of the “reality of work in modern time,” 480 U.S., at 739, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714, which lacks “tidy distinctions” between workplace and private activities, ibid., Justice Blackmun argued that “the precise extent of an employee’s expectation of privacy often turns on the nature of the search,” id., at 738, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714. And he emphasized that courts should determine this expectation in light of the specific facts of each particular search, rather than by announcing a categorical standard. See id., at 741, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714.

For the reasons stated at page 762 of the Court’s opinion, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 228-229, it is clear that respondent Jeff Quon, as a law enforcement officer who served on a SWAT Team, should have understood that all of his work-related actions—including all of his communications on his official pager—were likely to be subject to public and legal scrutiny. He therefore had only a limited expectation of privacy in relation to this particular audit of his pager messages. Whether one applies the reasoning from Justice O’Connor’s opinion, Justice Scalia’s concurrence, or Justice Black-mun’s dissent* in O’Connor, the re-*232suit

[560 U.S. 767]

is the same: The judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case must be reversed.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I join the Court’s opinion except for Part III-A. I continue to believe that the “operational realities” rubric for determining the Fourth Amendment’s application to public employees invented by the plurality in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987), is standardless and unsupported. Id., at 729-732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). In this case, the proper threshold inquiry should be not whether the Fourth Amendment applies to messages on public employees’ employer-issued pagers, but whether it applies in general to such messages on employer-issued pagers. See id., at 731, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714.

Here, however, there is no need to answer that threshold question. Even accepting at face value Quon’s and his co-plaintiffs’ claims that the Fourth Amendment applies to their messages, the city’s search was reasonable, and thus did not violate the Amendment. See id., at 726, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (plurality opinion); id., at 732, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Since it is unnecessary to decide whether the Fourth Amendment applies, it is unnecessary to resolve which approach in O’Connor controls: the plurality’s or mine.† That should end the matter.

[560 U.S. 768]

The Court concedes as much, ante, at 757, 760-765, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 225-226, 228-230, yet it inexplicably interrupts its analysis with a recitation of the parties’ arguments concerning, and an excursus on the complexity and consequences of answering, that admittedly irrelevant threshold question, ante, at 758-760, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 226-228. That discussion is unnecessary. (To whom do we owe an additional explanation for declining to decide an issue, once we have explained that it makes no difference?) It also seems to me exaggerated. Applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies may sometimes be diffi*233cult, but when it is necessary to decide a case we have no choice. The Court’s implication, ante, at 759, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 226, that where electronic privacy is concerned we should decide less than we otherwise would (that is, less than the principle of law necessary to resolve the case and guide private action)—or that we should hedge our bets by concocting case-specific standards or issuing opaque opinions—is in my view indefensible. The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.

Worse still, the digression is self-defeating. Despite the Court’s insistence that it is agnostic about the proper test, lower courts will likely read the Court’s self-described “instructive” expatiation on how the O’Connor plurality’s approach would apply here (if it applied), ante, at 758-760, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 226-228, as a heavy-handed hint about how they should proceed. Litigants will do likewise, using the threshold question whether the Fourth Amendment is even implicated as a basis for bombarding lower courts with arguments about employer policies, how they were communicated, and whether they were authorized, as well as the latest trends in employees’ use of

[560 U.S. 769]

electronic media. In short, in saying why it is not saying more, the Court says much more than it should.

The Court’s inadvertent boosting of the O’Connor plurality’s standard is all the more ironic because, in fleshing out its fears that applying that test to new technologies will be too hard, the Court underscores the unworkability of that standard. Any rule that requires evaluating whether a given gadget is a “necessary instru-men[t] for self-expression, even self-identification,” on top of assessing the degree to which “the law’s treatment of [workplace norms has] evolve [d],” ante, at 759-760, 177 L. Ed. 2d, at 226-228, is (to put it mildly) unlikely to yield objective answers.

I concur in the Court’s judgment.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Sarah Borse brought suit against her former employer, Piece Goods Shop, Inc. (“the Shop”), in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She claimed that, by dismissing her when she refused to submit to urinalysis screening and personal property searches (conducted by her employer at the workplace pursuant to its drug and alcohol policy), the Shop violated a public policy that precludes employers from engaging in activities that violate their employees’ rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable searches. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. This appeal requires us to decide whether an at-will employee who is discharged for refusing to consent to urinalysis screening for drug use and to searches of her personal property states a claim for wrongful discharge under Pennsylvania law.

Because we predict that, under certain circumstances, discharging a private-sector, at-will employee for refusal to consent to drug testing and to personal property searches may violate the public policy embodied in the Pennsylvania cases recognizing a cause Of action for tortious invasion of privacy, and because the allegations of Borse’s complaint are not sufficient for us to determine whether the facts of this case support such a claim, we will vacate the district court’s order and remand with directions to grant leave to amend.

I. THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Because of the procedural posture of this case, we begin with a summary of the allegations of the complaint. Borse was employed as a sales clerk by the Piece Goods Shop for almost fifteen years. In January 1990, the Shop adopted a drug and alcohol policy which required its employees to sign a form giving their consent to urinalysis screening for drug use and to searches of their personal property located on the Shop’s premises.

Borse refused to sign the consent form. On more than one occasion, she asserted that the drug and alcohol policy violated her right to privacy and her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Shop continued to insist that she sign the form and threatened to discharge her unless she did. On February 9, 1990, the Shop terminated Borse’s employment.

The complaint alleges that Borse was discharged in retaliation for her refusal to sign the consent form and for protesting the Shop’s drug and alcohol policy. It asserts that her discharge violated a public policy, embodied in the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which precludes employers from engaging in activities that violate their employees’ rights to privacy and to freedom from unreasonable searches of their persons and property. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, injury to reputation, loss of earnings, and diminished earning capacity. She also alleges that the discharge was willful and malicious and, accordingly, seeks punitive damages.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL DOCTRINE IN PENNSYLVANIA

A. Choice of Law and Scope of Review

The district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The jurisdiction of this court is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state whose laws govern the action. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Our review of the district court’s prediction and application of, Pennsylvania law is plenary. Smith v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 917 F.2d 1338, 1345 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1597, 113 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991). Because the Pennsylvania Supreme *614Court has not addressed the question whether discharging an at-will employee who refuses to consent to urinalysis and to searches of his or her personal property located on the employer’s premises violates public policy, we must predict how that court would resolve the issue should it be called upon to do so. Smith, 917 F.2d at 1341; Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir.1990). Although decisions by Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts are not conclusive in predicting how the state’s highest court would decide an issue, they suggest how that court might decide and may constitute presumptive evidence of state law in appropriate circumstances. McGowan v. University of Scranton, 759 F.2d 287, 291 (3d Cir.1985).

B. Recognition of the Exception by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Ordinarily, Pennsylvania law does not provide a common-law cause of action for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee. Rather, an employer “may discharge an employee with or without cause, at pleasure, unless restrained by some contract.” Henry v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co., 139 Pa. 289, 21 A. 157, 157 (1891) (quoted in Smith, 917 F.2d at 1341).

In Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974), however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized the possibility that an action for wrongful discharge might lie when the firing of an at-will employee violates public policy. Geary, a salesperson, complained to his immediate superiors about the safety of his employer’s product. After being told to “follow directions,” Geary took his complaints to the vice-president in charge of the product. As a result, the company withdrew the product from the market, but discharged Geary.

Geary argued that an exception to the at-will doctrine was warranted in his case because his dismissal was contrary to public policy. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, relying upon two factors to decide that Geary’s case did not merit an exception. First, the court observed that Geary was not responsible for monitoring product safety and that he did not possess expertise in that area. 319 A.2d at 178-79. Second, the court noted that Geary had violated the internal chain of command by pressing his concerns before the vice-president. Id. at 179-80.

Summarizing its decision, the court stated:

It may be granted that there are areas of an employee’s life in which his employer has no legitimate interest. An intrusion into one of these areas by virtue of the employer’s power of discharge might plausibly give rise to a cause of action, particularly where some recognized facet of public policy is threatened_ [However, w]e hold only that where the complaint itself discloses a plausible and legitimate reason for terminating an at-will employment relationship and no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby, an employee at will has no right of action against his employer for wrongful discharge.

Id. at 180. Courts construing Pennsylvania law have interpreted this language as implicitly recognizing that a cause of action for wrongful discharge exists in appropriate circumstances, even though the court refused to uphold such an action on the facts in Geary. See, for example, Woodson v. AMF Leisureland Centers, Inc., 842 F.2d 699 (3d Cir.1988) (upholding cause of action). See also Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 388 Pa.Super. 400, 565 A.2d 1170 (1989) (same); Hunter v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 277 Pa.Super. 4, 419 A.2d 631 (1980) (same); Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 Pa.Super. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (1978) (same).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not revisit the validity of the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine until fifteen years after Geary. In Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989), a married couple employed by the same company alleged that they were fired because the wife rejected the sexual advances of a company manager. The court held that their claims were barred because they had failed to seek recourse under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which provides a statutory remedy for wrongful discharges based upon sexual harassment. The court did not deny that it had recognized a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Geary, but it did stress the narrowness of that exception. The court stated:

[A]s a general rule, there is no common law cause of action against an employer for termination of an at-will employment relationship.... Exceptions to this rule have been recognized only in the most limited of circumstances, where discharges of at-will employees would threaten clear mandates of public policy.... Nevertheless, inasmuch as appellees failed to pursue their exclusive stat*615utory remedy for sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, they are precluded from relief.

Id. at 918-19 (citations omitted).1

One year later, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court returned to the issue again. In Paul v. Lankenau Hospital, 524 Pa. 90, 569 A.2d 346 (1990), a doctor alleged that a hospital had forced him to resign because he removed five refrigerators, which he claimed that he was authorized to take. He argued that because he had permission to remove the refrigerators, the hospital was estopped from discharging him for taking them. The court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Id. 569 A.2d at 348. The court also appeared to question the validity of the public policy exception, but it did not expressly inter it. Regarding Geary, the court stated:

The majority in a 4-3 decision held that while some exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine might exist, especially in public policy areas, “this case does not require us to define in comprehensive fashion the perimeters of this privilege, and we decline to do so.” ... The Court specifically answered in the negative to the central question of “whether the time has come to impose judicial restraints on an employer’s power of discharge.”

Id. at 348 (citations and footnote omitted). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not addressed the public policy exception since Paul.

C. Application of the Exception by the Pennsylvania Superior Court

The Pennsylvania Superior Court first upheld a wrongful discharge cause of action based on the public policy exception in Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 Pa.Super. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (1978). Reuther alleged that he was discharged for missing work for a week in order to serve jury duty. The court first observed that “[t]he jury system and jury service are of the highest importance to our legal process.” 386 A.2d at 120. As evidence of the strong public policy encouraging jury service, the court then cited the Pennsylvania Constitution’s guarantee of the right to trial by jury, a Pennsylvania statute providing that summonses for jury service shall be deemed summonses of the court, another Pennsylvania statute providing that persons who fail to appear for jury duty when summoned may be fined, and the United States Supreme Court’s identification of trial by jury as “fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1447, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). The court thus concluded that “the necessity of having citizens freely available for jury service is just the sort of ‘recognized facet of public policy’ alluded to by our Supreme Court in Geary. ” 386 A.2d at 121. Accordingly, the court held that Reuther had stated a cause of action.

The Superior Court also upheld a cause of action for wrongful discharge in Hunter v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 277 Pa.Super. 4, 419 A.2d 631 (1980). Hunter alleged that the Port Authority had denied his application for employment as a bus driver because of a thirteen-year old assault conviction for which he had since been pardoned. The court noted that the federal courts had held that banning a person convicted of past misconduct from public employment violates federal law unless the ban is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The court also observed that the Pennsylvania legislature had recently enacted a statute limiting an employer’s reliance upon criminal records when making employment decisions. The court then turned to Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions interpreting Article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution2 as prohibiting the government from interfering with the “right to engage in any of the common occupations of life” without a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental objective. 419 A.2d at 635. In reliance upon those decisions and “ ‘the deeply ingrained public policy of this State ... to avoid unwarranted stigmatization of *616and unreasonable restrictions upon former offenders,’ ” id. at 636 n. 5 (quoting Secretary of Revenue v. John’s Vending Corp., 453 Pa. 488, 309 A.2d 358, 362 (1973)), the court held that Hunter had stated a cause of action under Article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 388 Pa.Super. 400, 565 A.2d 1170 (1989), is the most recent Superior Court decision upholding a wrongful discharge cause of action based on the public policy violation. Plaintiffs, a married couple employed by companies that provided services to the Philadelphia Electric Company (“PECO”), alleged that they were discharged because the husband had notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that PECO had violated the Commission’s regulations. The court held that the alleged discharge contravened public policy because federal law required Field to report the violations, nothing in the complaint indicated that he had bypassed the internal chain of command, Field was an expert in the area, and the public potentially was endangered by the violations. Specifically, the court reasoned:

Since a statutory duty to act is present, since discharge was based on performance of that. statutory duty, and since performance of that duty directly and clearly protects public safety, we believe a cause of action for wrongful discharge exists in this case.

565 A.2d at 1180.

The Superior Court’s first statement of general principles for determining whether a cause of action for wrongful discharge exists (in contrast to the case-by-case application of Geary) came in a decision in which it rejected the plaintiff’s claim. In Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 281 Pa.Super. 560, 422 A.2d 611 (1980), the court explained that the employer’s interest in running its business as it sees fit must sometimes yield to the employee’s interest in making a living and to the public’s interest in ensuring that the employer does not act abusively. 422 A.2d at 617. The court then analogized the wrongful discharge action to an action for intentional interference with the performance of a contract and reasoned that in determining whether a discharge is wrongful, it should consider the same factors that courts consider in assessing whether an intentional interference with the performance of a contract is improper. Id. at 618.3 Specifically, the court stated that the “employer’s interest in running its business, its motive in discharging [the employee] and its manner of effecting the discharge, and any social interests or public policies that may be implicated in the discharge” must be “balanc[ed] against [the employee’s] interest in making a living.” Id. at 620.

Yaindl appeared to expand the public policy exception dramatically. When an employer arbitrarily discharges an employee, the employee’s interest in earning a living will usually outweigh the employer’s interest. Therefore, because Yaindl requires the court to balance the employee’s interest in earning a living against the employer’s interest, it could be read as establishing a just cause requirement for discharging an at-will employee. See Comment, The Role of Federal Courts in Changing State Law: The Employment at Will Doctrine in Pennsylvania, 133 U Pa L Rev 227, 251 (1984) (reading Yaindl in this manner).

The Yaindl test proved short-lived, however; the court reformulated it only four years later in Cisco v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 328 Pa.Super. 300, 476 A.2d 1340 (1984). See Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community College, 372 Pa.Super. 480, 539 A.2d 1298, 1301 (1988) (Cisco “redefined the Yaindl balancing test”). Rather than balance the individual employee’s right to earn a living against the individual employer’s interests, Cisco restored the focus on public policy. It stated:

First, we must discern whether any public policy is threatened [by the discharge of an at-will employee]; second, even when an important public policy is involved, an employer may discharge an employee if he has separate, plausible and legitimate reasons for doing so.

476 A.2d at 1343.

In addition to retaining the focus on public policy, subsequent decisions by the Su*617perior Court have stressed that the public policy allegedly violated by the discharge must be clearly stated. For example, in Turner v. Letterkenny Federal Credit Union, 351 Pa.Super. 51, 505 A.2d 259 (1985), the court explained that Geary

held that where no clear mandate of public policy is violated by a termination, an employee has no right to action against his employer. The [Geary] court made clear that an essential element in permitting a cause of action for wrongful discharge was a finding of a clearly defined mandate of public policy.

505 A.2d at 260 (emphasis added). The court further stated that Geary and subsequent cases

demonstrate a pattern of favoring the employer’s interest in running its business. ... [T]o overcome the employer’s interest in running a business, the employee must show a violation of a clearly mandated public policy which “strikes at the heart of a citizen’s social right, duties, and responsibilities.”

Id. at 261 (emphasis added) (quoting Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894, 899 (3d Cir.1983)). See also Rinehimer, 539 A.2d at 1302 (Turner noted that employee had to show a violation of a clearly mandated public policy) (emphasis in original); id. at 1304 (specificity and clarity necessary to sustain wrongful discharge action); McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 383 Pa.Super. 223, 556 A.2d 878, 884 (1989), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 584, 575 A.2d 115 (1990) (“[W]here the public policy claimed to be violated is not ‘clear,’ a cause of action for wrongful discharge has not been recognized.”); 556 A.2d at 885 (“[U]nless an employee identifies a ‘specific’ expression of public policy violated by his discharge, it will not be labelled as wrongful and within the sphere of public policy.”).

In sum, the Superior Court continues to interpret Pennsylvania law as recognizing the public policy exception, but its most recent decisions emphasize that the exception is a narrow one. See Burkholder v. Hutchison, 403 Pa.Super. 498, 589 A.2d 721, 723 (1991) (characterizing exception as “extremely narrow”); Yetter v. Ward Trucking Corp., 401 Pa.Super. 467, 585 A.2d 1022, 1025 (1991) (exception recognized in “only the most limited of circumstances”) (quoting Paul, 569 A.2d at 346). The public policy violated must be clear and specific before the court will uphold the cause of action.

D. Third Circuit Oyinions Ayylying the Public Policy Exceytion under Pennsylvania Law

In a series of cases decided after Geary, but before Clay and Paul, this court read Geary as recognizing a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Woodson v. AMF Leisureland Centers, Inc., 842 F.2d 699 (3d Cir.1988); Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1983); Bruffett v. Warner Communications, Inc., 692 F.2d 910 (3d Cir.1982); Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 611 F.2d 1363 (3d Cir.1979). In our most recent case on the issue, Smith v. Calgon Carbon Corp., 917 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1597, 113 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991), we acknowledged that Clay and Paul cast some doubt on interpreting Geary as recognizing the public policy exception, but we concluded that

in the absence of a clear statement by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in Pennsylvania law, we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court.

Id. at 1343 (emphasis in original).

As we have noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not addressed the public policy exception since its decision in Paul. We are aware of no “persuasive evidence of a change in Pennsylvania law.” As we have also explained, the Pennsylvania Superior Court continues to interpret Pennsylvania law as recognizing the public policy exception. Accordingly, we continue to interpret Geary as recognizing a cause of action for wrongful discharge when dismissal of an at-will employee violates a clear mandate of public policy.

III. SOURCES OF PUBLIC POLICY

In order to evaluate Borse’s claim, we must attempt to “discern whether any public policy is threatened” by her discharge. Cisco, 476 A.2d at 1343.4 As evidence of a public policy that precludes employers from discharging employees who refuse to consent to the practices at issue, Borse primarily relies upon the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the right to privacy included in the *618Pennsylvania Constitution. As will be seen, we reject her reliance on these constitutional provisions, concluding instead that, to the extent that her discharge implicates public policy, the source of that policy lies in Pennsylvania common law.

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. The United States Constitution

Although the Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution proscribes only the government from violating the individual’s right to privacy, and to freedom from unreasonable searches, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602, 614, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1411, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches by private party), Borse argues that our decision in Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 721 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1983), permits us to consider the public policies embodied in the First and Fourth Amendments despite the lack of state action. In Novosel, defendant Nationwide instructed its employees to participate in its effort to lobby the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, which was then considering an insurance reform act. Specifically, Nationwide directed its employees to clip, copy, and obtain signatures on coupons bearing the insignia of the Pennsylvania Committee for No-Fault Reform. Novosel alleged that he was discharged for refusing to participate in the lobbying effort and for privately stating opposition to his employer’s political stand.

In response to Novosel’s claim, Nationwide argued that a wrongful discharge action depends upon the violation of a statutorily recognized public policy. We disagreed. We observed that “both Reuther and Hunter allowed causes of action to be implied directly from the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Id. at 898. We also pointed out that “Hunter further noted that Pennsylvania courts allow direct causes of action under the Constitution regardless of legislative action or inaction.” Id (citation omitted). After noting that the public policy exception applies only in the absence of statutory remedies, we reasoned:

Given that there are no statutory remedies available in the present case and taking into consideration the importance of the political and associational freedoms of the federal and state Constitutions, the absence of a statutory declaration of public policy would appear to be no bar to the existence of a cause of action. Accordingly, a cognizable expression of public policy may be derived in this case from either the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.5

Id. at 899.

In deciding not to extend Novosel to Borse’s claim, the district court remarked upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s reluctance to rely upon constitutional provisions as sources of public policy. According to the district court, the Superior Court has never upheld such an action. The district court also noted that, although the Superior Court “has formulated a list of appropriate sources of public policy,” its list does not include constitutional provisions. Moreover, the district court observed that in Booth v. McDonnell Douglas Truck Services, Inc., 401 Pa.Super. 234, 585 A.2d 24, appeal denied, 528 Pa. 620, 597 A.2d 1150 (1991), the Superior Court refused to uphold a wrongful discharge action that relied upon a constitutional provision as a source of public policy because, among other reasons, plaintiff made no allegation of state action. The district court reasoned that the Superior Court’s requirement of state action in Booth “is no less applicable to [Borse’s] cause of action under policies manifested in the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”

To the extent that the district court’s opinion suggests that a constitutional provision may never serve as a source of public policy in Pennsylvania wrongful discharge actions, we disagree. Although the Superior Court has never upheld a wrongful discharge cause of action that depended upon a public policy stated solely in a constitutional provision, two of its three cases upholding wrongful discharge causes of action relied upon constitutional provisions as evidence of public policy. See Hunter, 419 A.2d at 635 (relying upon Pennsylvania Constitution); Reuther, 386 A.2d at 121 (looking to United States Constitution). Moreover, unlike the district court, we do not read an intent to proscribe reliance on constitutional provisions from the “list of appropriate sources *619of public policy” quoted in Cisco. 6 As the district court observed, that list does not explicitly include constitutional provisions. Yet nothing in Cisco indicates that the Superior Court intended it to serve as an exhaustive enumeration of the sources that courts may consider as evidence of public policy. In contrast, a more recent decision by that court expressly contemplates the use of constitutional provisions as sources of public policy. In Scott v. Extracorporeal Inc., 376 Pa.Super. 90, 545 A.2d 334 (1988), the court stated: “It is generally accepted that to be actionable, the asserted public policy must be one which is already articulated in law or a constitutional provision.” 545 A.2d at 342.

Even though the district court may have overestimated the Superior Court’s hostility to reliance upon constitutional provisions as sources of public policy, it correctly refused to extend Novosel to Borse’s claim. As the district court observed, the Superior Court has refused to extend constitutional provisions designed to restrict governmental conduct in the absence of state action. One year after Novosel was decided, the Superior Court refused to import constitutional principles into a wrongful discharge action against a private employer. In Cisco, a worker employed by United Parcel Services (“UPS”) to deliver packages was charged with theft in connection with a routine delivery. While the charges were pending, UPS insisted that Cisco resign. Even though Cisco was later acquitted by a jury, UPS refused to reinstate him.

Cisco identified the public policy allegedly violated by the discharge as a criminal defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence. Specifically, he argued that the presumption becomes meaningless if an individual may be discharged merely because of an accusation. The court observed:

While the full panoply of rights incident to a criminal defendant were entitlements of [Cisco] in his trial experience, including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, these rights which are ensured by both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions are not necessarily meant to, nor can they[] be[,] superimposed onto an accused’s remaining life experiences.

476 A.2d at 1344. Thus, Cisco refused to apply constitutional restrictions on state action to a discharge by a private employer.

The court took the same approach in Martin v. Capital Cities Media, Inc., 354 Pa.Super. 199, 511 A.2d 830 (1986), in which a newspaper fired an employee for placing a classified advertisement in a competing newspaper. The employee argued that the discharge violated public policy becaúse it penalized her for exercising her right to free speech under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court disagreed, reasoning that “while the constitutional right of free speech is accorded a person who advertises, these rights are not meant to be, nor can they be, superimposed and extended to all other aspects of his life.” Id. at 844. See also Veno v. Meredith, 357 Pa.Super. 85, 515 A.2d 571 (1986) (relying on same reasoning to reject wrongful discharge claim of newspaper editor fired for publishing article criticizing judge).

The Superior Court reiterated the importance of the state action requirement just last year. In Booth, plaintiff alleged that his employer discharged him in order to avoid paying a commission due him. He argued that the discharge violated the public policy enunciated in Article I, section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which prohibits laws impairing the obligations of contracts. The Superior Court disposed of the argument on the ground that the constitutional provision did not apply because no allegation of state action had been made. 585 A.2d at 28.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not considered the propriety of applying constitutional principles to wrongful discharge actions against private employers. Its most recent decisions regarding the cause of action admonish us, however, that the public policy exception applies “only in the most limited of circumstances,” Paul, 569 A.2d at 348 (quoting Clay, 559 A.2d at 918). Moreover, even though Cisco, Mar *620 tin, Veno, and Booth did not explicitly address Novosel’s reliance upon a constitutional provision in the absence of state action, the clear trend of those cases indicates that the Pennsylvania courts would be highly unlikely to extend Novosel.

Novosel’s holding (i.e., that using the power of discharge to coerce employees’ political activity violates public policy) is not at issue here and thus we need not decide whether the recent Pennsylvania cases constitute such “persuasive evidence of a change in Pennsylvania law” that we are free to disregard it. See Smith, 917 F.2d at 1343. Instead, we need only decide whether to extend the approach taken in Novosel. In light of the narrowness of the public policy exception and of the Pennsylvania courts’ continuing insistence upon the state action requirement, we predict that if faced with the issue, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not look to the First and Fourth Amendments as sources of public policy when there is no state action. Accordingly, we decline to extend the approach taken in Novosel to this case.

2. The Pennsylvania Constitution

Although Borse’s complaint did not. rely upon the Pennsylvania Constitution as a source of public policy, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on this issue at our request. Article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution explicitly protects the right of privacy.7 See In re June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 490 Pa. 143, 415 A.2d 73, 77 (1980) (“Allegheny Grand Jury"). On two occasions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that court-ordered disclosure of personal information implicates the right of privacy protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Allegheny Grand Jury, 415 A.2d at 77-78 (disclosure of medical information); In re “B”, 482 Pa. 471, 394 A.2d 419, 425 (1978) (disclosure of psychiatric records).

That court has not specifically decided whether the right of privacy protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution extends to private actors. The court has observed, however, that:

Article 1 is entitled “Declaration of Rights” and all of the first twenty-six sections of Article 1 which state those specific rights, must be read as limiting the power of government to interfere with the rights provided therein.... [T]he first twenty-six sections of Article 1 ... merely contain a limitation on the powers of government.

Commonwealth v. National Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc., 454 Pa. 193, 311 A.2d 588, 592 (1973). Accordingly, we predict that if faced with the issue, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would hold that the right of privacy protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution does not encompass invasions of privacy committed by private actors. Therefore, we also predict that the Pennsylvania courts would not look to that constitutional provision as evidence of public policy in a wrongful discharge action against a private employer.

B. Pennsylvania Common Law

Although we have rejected Borse’s reliance upon constitutional provisions as evidence of a public policy allegedly violated by the Piece Goods Shop’s drug and alcohol program, our review of Pennsylvania law reveals other evidence of a public policy that may, under certain circumstances, give rise to a wrongful discharge action related to urinalysis or to personal property searches. Specifically, we refer to the Pennsylvania common law regarding tortious invasion of privacy.

Pennsylvania recognizes a cause of action for tortious “intrusion upon seclusion.” Marks v. Bell Telephone Co., 460 Pa. 73, 331 A.2d 424, 430 (1975). The Restatement defines the tort as follows:

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B.8

*621Unlike the other forms of tortious invasion of privacy,9 an action based on intrusion upon seclusion does not require publication as an element of the tort. Harris by Harris v. Easton Publishing Co., 335 Pa.Super. 141, 483 A.2d 1377, 1383 (1984). The tort may occur by (1) physical intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has secluded himself or herself; (2) use of the defendant’s senses to oversee or overhear the plaintiff’s private affairs; or (3) some other form of investigation or examination into plaintiff’s private concerns. 483 A.2d at 1383. Liability attaches only when the intrusion is substantial and would be highly offensive to “the ordinary reasonable person.” Id. at 1383-84.

We can envision at least two ways in which an employer’s urinalysis program might intrude upon an employee’s seclusion. First, the particular manner in which the program is conducted might constitute an intrusion upon seclusion as defined by Pennsylvania law. The process of collecting the urine sample to be tested clearly implicates “expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable,” Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602, 617, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1413, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989).10 In addition, many urinalysis programs monitor the collection of the urine specimen to ensure that the employee does not adulterate it or substitute a sample from another person. See, for example, 109 S.Ct. at 1413 (noting that in some cases, visual or aural observation of urination is required). See also National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 660, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1388, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). Monitoring collection of the urine sample appears to fall within the definition of an intrusion upon seclusion because it involves the use of one’s senses to oversee the private activities of another. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, comment b. See also Harris, 483 A.2d at 1383.

As the United States Supreme Court has observed:

There are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine. Most people describe it by euphemisms if they talk about it at all. It is a function traditionally performed without public observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well as social custom.

Skinner, 109 S.Ct. at 1413 (quoting National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F.2d 170, 175 (5th Cir.1987), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989)). If the method used to collect the urine sample fails to give due regard to the employees’ privacy, it could constitute a substantial and highly offensive intrusion upon seclusion. See Mark A. Rothstein, Drug Testing in the Workplace: The Challenge to Employment Relations and Employment Law, 63 Chi-Kent L Rev 683, 729 (1987) (public policy exception to employment-at-will doctrine most likely to be applied when employer requires direct observation of urination). See also Kelley v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., 849 F.2d 41 (1st Cir.1988) (upholding jury verdict that employer’s urinalysis program involving direct observation of urination invaded common-law right of privacy under Louisiana law).

Second, urinalysis “can reveal a host of private medical facts about an employee, including whether she is epileptic, pregnant, or diabetic.” Skinner, 109 S.Ct. at 1413. A reasonable person might well conclude that submitting urine samples to tests designed to ascertain these types of information constitutes a substantial and highly offensive intrusion upon seclusion.

The same principles apply to an employer’s search of an employee’s personal property. If the search is not conducted in a a discreet manner or if it is done in such a way as to reveal personal matters unrelated to the workplace, the search might well constitute a tortious invasion of the employee’s privacy. See, for example, K-Mart Corp. Store No. 7441 v. Trotti, 677 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.App.1984) (search of employee’s locker). See also Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or.App. 480, 635 P.2d 657 (1981) (subjecting cashier accused of stealing to strip search).

The Pennsylvania courts have not had occasion to consider whether a discharge *622related to an employer’s tortious invasion of an employee’s privacy violates public policy. The district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has addressed this question in applying Pennsylvania law, however. In Rogers v. International Business Machines Corp., 500 F.Supp. 867 (W.D.Pa.1980), plaintiff argued that IBM’s decision to discharge him violated public policy because it was based upon an investigation of a personal matter (an alleged affair with a co-worker) that invaded his right of privacy. The court examined the record to determine whether the investigation intruded upon plaintiff’s seclusion. After determining that IBM had confined its investigation to interviewing other employees and examining company records, the court concluded that IBM’s procedures were reasonable and did not violate public policy.

We predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would follow the approach taken in Rogers. In other words, we believe that when an employee alleges that his or her discharge was related to an employer’s invasion of his or her privacy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would examine . the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged invasion of privacy. See Cisco, 476 A.2d at 1343 (emphasizing necessity of examining all the circumstances in wrongful discharge cases). If the court determined that the discharge was related to a substantial and highly offensive invasion of the employee’s privacy, we believe that it would conclude that the discharge violated public policy.11 Indeed, the following language in Geary might well be considered to presage such an approach:

It may be granted that there are areas of an employee’s life in which his employer has no legitimate interest. An intrusion into one of these areas by virtue of the employer's power of discharge might plausibly give rise to a cause of action, particularly where some recognized facet of public policy is threatened.

319 A.2d at 180.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Hershberger v. Jersey Shore Steel Co., 394 Pa.Super. 363, 575 A.2d 944 (1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 601, 589 A.2d 691 (1991), does not foreclose the possibility of a wrongful discharge action based upon an employer’s urinalysis program. In Hershberger, the employer discharged plaintiff after his urine tested positive for drugs. Two weeks later, plaintiff underwent another urinalysis on his own initiative and also arranged for the specimen from the first test to be analyzed by a more technically sophisticated method. Even though both latter tests were negative, the employer refused to rehire plaintiff.

The sole issue before the court was whether a clear mandate of public policy prohibits a private employer from discharging an employee on the basis of a positive drug test without confirming the results of the initial drug test by another, scientifically distinct test. As evidence that such a public policy exists, plaintiff argued that: (1) other states had enacted legislation requiring confirmatory testing; (2) Pennsylvania was then considering similar legislation; and (3) the federal and state courts had criticized the use of unconfirmed tests. In addition, plaintiff presented expert testimony regarding the desirability of confirmatory testing.

The court refused to rely upon the legislation requiring confirmatory testing because the bills before the Pennsylvania legislature were still pending. Moreover, the court concluded that the expert testimony was not dispositive regarding the unreliability of the test the employer used. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of a public policy requiring employers to perform confirmatory testing.

According to the district court, Hershberger “implicitly holds, sub silentio, that no public policy, constitutional or otherwise, inhibits a private employer from requiring its employees to submit to urine testing for the presence of drugs and alcohol.” It may be that Hershberger implicitly assumes that public policy does not preclude a private employer from requiring its employees to undergo urinalysis for drug use per se, but to us it is not clear that it does. The court may have elected to dispose of the case adversely to the plaintiff on the basis of the sole question presented without reaching a more difficult issue (the one before us now) that appears not to have been presented. Thus, we do not read Hershberger as foreclosing the possibility *623that, under some circumstances, an employer’s urinalysis program may violate public policy.

Only a handful of other jurisdictions have considered urinalysis programs implemented by private employers.12 The majority of these decisions balance the employee’s privacy interest against the employer’s interests in order to determine whether to uphold the programs. See, for example, Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123 (Alaska 1989). In Luedtke, two employees challenged their employer’s urinalysis program, alleging violation of their state constitutional right of privacy, common-law invasion of privacy, wrongful discharge, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Under Alaska law, the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine is “largely encompassed within the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” 768 P.2d at 1130, quoting Knight v. American Guard & Alert, Inc., 714 P.2d 788, 792 (Alaska 1986)). After determining that the relevant provision of the Alaska constitution did not apply to private action, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that a public policy protecting an employee’s right to withhold private information from his employer exists in Alaska and that violation of that policy “may rise to the level of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” 768 P.2d at 1130.

As evidence of public policy, the court looked to the state’s statutes,13 Constitution,14 and common law.15 The court concluded:

Thus, the citizens’ right to be protected against unwarranted intrusions into their private lives has been recognized in the law of Alaska. The constitution protects against governmental intrusion, statutes protect against employer intrusion, and the common law protects against intrusions by other private persons. As a result, there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there exists a public policy protecting spheres of employee conduct into which employers may not intrude.

Id. at 1133.

The court then turned to the question “whether employer monitoring of employee drug use outside the work place is such a prohibited intrusion,” id. at 1133. The court reasoned that the boundaries of the employee’s right of privacy “are determined by balancing [that right] against other public policies, such as ‘the health, safety, rights and privileges of others.’ ” Id. at 1135-36 (quoting Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 504 (Alaska 1975)). Because the Luedtke plaintiffs performed safety-sensitive jobs, the court concluded that the public policy supporting the protection of the health and safety of other workers justified their employer’s urinalysis program. 768 P.2d at 1136.

The West Virginia Supreme Court also applied a balancing test in Twigg v. Hercules Corp, 185 W.Va. 155, 406 S.E.2d 52 (1990). The case arose when the district court for the Northern District of West *624Virginia certified the following question to the court:

Can the discharge of an employee for refusing to submit to urinalysis as part of a random drug test violate a substantial public policy of West Virginia and subject the employer to damages under [West Virginia law] when the employer has no individualized suspicion of drug usage and the drug test is not prohibited by state statute?

In response, the court observed that it had previously held that requiring employees to submit to polygraph tests violated the state’s public policy of protecting individual privacy rights. The court then reasoned:

[I]t is unquestionable that since we do recognize a “legally protected interest in privacy” and have previously found that requiring employees to submit to polygraph examinations violates public policy based upon this privacy right, we likewise recognize that it is contrary to public policy in West Virginia for an employer to require an employee to submit to drug testing, since such testing portends an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy.

Id at 55.16

Even some courts that have held that urinalysis programs conducted by private employers do not violate the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine have balanced the employee’s interests against the employer’s. Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Company, 247 N.J.Super. 297, 589 A.2d 170, certif. granted, 126 N.J. 340, 598 A.2d 898 (1991), provides an example of this approach. After refusing to apply federal and state constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches to private employers, the Hennessey court conceded, for the sake of argument, that the right of privacy may serve as a source of public policy. The court opined, however, that the intrusion upon privacy implicated by urinalysis had been “overstated.” 589 A.2d at 177. The court also observed that the urinalysis program served public policy by deterring drug use and that the employer had a legitimate interest in eliminating drug use in the workplace. Because the court considered the invasion of privacy minimal and the employer’s interests substantial,17 it concluded, on the basis of this balancing, that the employer had not violated a clear mandate of public policy and hence that discharging an employee who tested positive for drugs did not fall within the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

The court in Hennessey was much more reluctant than the Luedtke and Twigg courts to recognize the privacy interest raised by the employer’s urinalysis program. We find it significant, however, that in Hennessey it was clear that the particular program at issue did hot constitute a substantial and highly offensive invasion of privacy. First, the urine specimens were tested solely for drugs. 589 A.2d at 173. Second, although monitors were present during the collection of the specimens, the monitors stood behind the employees and were specifically instructed “not to look at any of the employees’ genitalia or private parts.” Id. We suspect that given these circumstances, a reasonable person would not find the program highly offensive.

Although most other jurisdictions have applied a balancing test to urinalysis programs conducted by private employers, not all have done so. In Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.App.1989), for example, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld an employer’s random urinalysis program without balancing the employee’s interests against the employer’s. The court upheld the program for two reasons. First, the court reasoned that although the Texas Supreme Court had on one occasion recognized an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine based on public policy, see Sabine Pilot, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985), the “lower courts are not free to create additional exceptions,” 765 S.W.2d at 501, particularly in the absence of a statute explicitly recognizing the public policy allegedly violated by the discharge, id. at 501 & 501 n. 3. Second, the court reasoned that the employer’s urinalysis program would not violate plaintiff’s privacy be*625cause her urine would be tested only if she consented. Id. at 502. Jennings argued that her consent would be ineffective because if she did not consent, she would lose her job, which she could not afford to do. The court rejected her argument, however, because “[t]here cannot be one law of contracts for the rich and another for the poor.” Id.

The balancing test is more consistent with Pennsylvania law than the approach taken by the Texas court in Jennings. Unlike the Texas courts, Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate courts have recognized a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine on three occasions and have emphasized the need to examine all the circumstances in a wrongful discharge action, Cisco, 476 A.2d at 1343. Moreover, although two of those cases in part relied upon public policies expressed in statutes, the Pennsylvania courts have also recognized other sources as competent evidence of public policy. See page -. More importantly, under Pennsylvania law an employee’s consent to a violation of public policy is no defense to a wrongful discharge action when that consent is obtained by the threat of dismissal.18

In view of the foregoing analysis, we predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply a balancing test to determine whether the Shop’s drug and alcohol program (consisting of urinalysis and personal property searches) invaded Borse’s privacy. Indeed, determining whether an alleged invasion of privacy is substantial and highly offensive to the reasonable person necessitates the use of a balancing test. The test we believe that Pennsylvania would adopt balances the employee’s privacy interest against the employer’s interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace in order to determine whether a reasonable person would find the employer’s program highly offensive.19

We recognize that other jurisdictions have considered individualized suspicion and concern for safety as factors to be considered in striking the balance, see, for example, Twigg, 406 S.E.2d at 55 (allowing urinalysis based on individualized suspicion or when employee’s job implicates safety concerns). We do not doubt that, in an appropriate case, Pennsylvania would include these factors in the balance, but we do not believe that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would require private employers to limit urinalysis programs or personal property searches to employees suspected of drug use or to those performing safety-sensitive jobs.20

This precautionary note springs from two sources. First, these limitations originated in cases applying constitutional principles to urinalysis programs conducted by government employers. See Skinner, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). We do not believe that the Pennsylvania courts would transfer the jurisprudence of the cases involving government employers to actions against private employers because the standard applied in cases involving government employers differs significantly from that applied in the tortious invasion of privacy cases. In the cases involving govern*626ment employers, courts have asked whether the urinalysis program is reasonable under Fourth Amendment principles. In contrast, in order for an invasion of privacy to be tortious, it must be both substantial and highly offensive to the reasonable person. See Fogel, Kornblut, & Porter, 42 U Miami L Rev at 667 (comparing Fourth Amendment claim to tortious invasion of privacy claim). Therefore, even though our analysis at pages 621-24 reasons that if a private employer’s drug and alcohol program tortiously invaded its employees’ privacy, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would hold that discharges related to that program violated public policy, we do not believe that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would simply transpose Fourth Amendment limitations on public employers to urinalysis programs or personal property searches conducted by private employers.

Second, the case law concerning the public policy exception reflects “a pattern of favoring the employer’s interest in running its business,” Turner, 505 A.2d at 261, and a willingness to define that interest broadly. See, for example, Cisco, 476 A.2d at 1344 (discussing employer’s interest). Given this backdrop, we find it unlikely that Pennsylvania would impose the strict limitations of the Fourth Amendment cases.

In sum, based on our prediction of Pennsylvania law, we hold that dismissing an employee who refused to consent to urinalysis testing and to personal property searches would violate public policy if the testing tortiously invaded the employee’s privacy. The sketchy nature of Borse’s complaint makes it difficult for us to ascertain whether the Shop’s drug and alcohol program would constitute a substantial and highly offensive intrusion upon Borse’s privacy, however. Although she alleges that the program violates her right of privacy, she fails to allege how it does so. Because we can envision at least two ways in which an employer’s drug and alcohol program might violate the public policy protecting individuals from tortious invasions of privacy by private actors, see pages ——, ——, we will vacate the order of the district court dismissing the complaint, and we will remand the case to the district court with directions to grant Borse leave to amend.21

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC

July 6, 1992.

Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Judges Greenberg, Hutchinson, Nygaard and Alito would grant rehearing.

STATEMENT SUR DENIAL OF REHEARING IN BANC

HUTCHINSON, Circuit Judge.

I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing in banc for the following reasons. In this diversity case, it is our duty to follow the substantive decisions of the highest court of the forum state, much as we are duty bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. I believe the Court’s conclusion that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would create a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in favor of private sector employees who refuse random drug tests is contrary to the decisional *627law of that state’s highest court on employment at will. The Court concedes that the public policy on which it relies is not expressed in either the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pennsylvania’s statutory law or in existing Pennsylvania Supreme Court or Superior Court decisions concerning employment at will. This is a diversity case. Therefore, this Court is bound by state law. Judicial notions of public policy are no substitute for law. I am therefore unable to reconcile the Court’s opinion with the requirement that federal courts follow state law in deciding diversity cases. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

Pennsylvania case law demonstrates strict adherence to the doctrine of employment at will despite occasional dictum that there may exist undefined but narrow exceptions to that doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has only recently reiterated its view that any public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine is extremely narrow. See Paul v. Lankenau Hosp., 524 Pa. 90, 569 A.2d 346, 348-49 (1990). Its statement to that effect leads me to believe that specific exceptions should be created and defined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Until that court does so, I do not believe it is appropriate for a federal court to create an exception as important as the one announced here on a questionable analogy to the tortious invasion of privacy. That an employer may be liable in tort for invasion of privacy is not a basis for making it liable for wrongful discharge. The abstract existence of an action for invasion of privacy does not demonstrate that Pennsylvania would treat random drug testing in the private workplace as an invasion of privacy.

I see no indication anywhere in Pennsylvania’s decisional law from which a strong policy favoring employee privacy over random drug testing could be inferred in the context of employment at will. No Pennsylvania court has even considered whether an employer’s tortious invasion of an employee-at-will’s privacy precludes discharge.

The decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Rogers v. International Bus. Machines Corp., 500 F.Supp. 867 (W.D.Pa.1980), relied on by the Court is not to the contrary. There, an at-will employee was discharged because his relationship with a subordinate employee exceeded normal or reasonable business associations and the employee’s conduct negatively affected the duties of his employment. On the wrongful discharge claim, the court rejected Rogers’ argument that:

IBM’s decision to terminate was improper because it was predicated on an investigation of a personal matter in which the Company had no legitimate interest and therefore invaded his right of privacy.

Id. at 869. It said:

[A]n employer has a legitimate interest in “preserving harmony among its employees and in preserving its normal operational procedures from disruption.”

Id. (quoting Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974)). I believe an employer has an unquestionably legitimate interest in monitoring and investigating its employees’ use of illegal drugs.

I also believe that the Court gives an overly narrow reading to Hershberger v. Jersey Shore Steel Co., 394 Pa.Super. 363, 575 A.2d 944 (1990), the case that is most analogous to the one before us. There, Hershberger argued that a public policy exists in Pennsylvania that precluding discharge of an employee who tests positively for illegal drugs unless drug use is confirmed by a second test. The Superior Court held that public policy did not provide a reason to recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge based on positive results in a drug screening test that were not confirmed by a second testing procedure. Id. at 947. Hershberger relied on pending state legislation concerning confirmatory drug tests and federal and state decisions outside of Pennsylvania condemning the use of unreliable testing procedures. Id. at 947 & nn. 1 & 2. The state court nevertheless held, after considering the decisions from sister courts, that the pending legislation did not establish a “ ‘clear’ mandate” strong enough to permit a common law court to create a cause of action for wrongful discharge by an employee at will.

Though Hershberger did not consider whether the public policy against invasion *628of privacy precluded an employer from discharging an employee at will who tested positive for drugs, it did emphasize the necessity for a clear, strong expression of public policy before it would be appropriate to create a cause of action for wrongful discharge in the face of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s strict adherence to the doctrine of employment-at-will. I do not believe any such clear strong policy has been demonstrated here. Indeed, one might argue that there is a policy in favor of a drug-free workplace that is at least as strong as the right of privacy involved in random drug testing of private employees. Absent any federal or state constitutional or statutory prohibition against such testing, it seems to me it is the task of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not this Court, in regulating employment practices within that state and to decide what relative strength these two competing public policies have.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has historically been a strict enforcer of the right of an employer to discharge an employee at will for any reason, or no reason at all. It has recently restated its adherence to that view. Its insistence on the narrowness of any hypothetical exception to that right and the fact that no Pennsylvania case has granted relief from wrongful discharge to an employee at will convinces me that the Court’s decision in this case that a private employee at will who is discharged for refusing a random drug test has a state cause of action for wrongful discharge because the test violated a public policy in favor of privacy that is not found in either federal or state constitutional law, federal or state statutory law or any decision of a Pennsylvania state court conflicts with Erie. Similarly, this Court’s ability to “envision at least two ways in which an employer’s urinalysis program might intrude upon an employee’s seclusion,” Op. at 622, does not, in my judgment, demonstrate the kind of strong public policy that permits us to overlook Pennsylvania’s strong adherence to the doctrine of employment at will. Accordingly, I would grant the petition for rehearing in banc. Judges Greenberg and Alito join in this statement.

Opinion

RUSHING, J. *

International Business Machines (IBM) appeals from the judgment entered against it after a jury awarded $100,000 compensatory and $200,000 punitive damages to respondent (Virginia Rulon-Miller) on claims of wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Rulon-Miller was a low-level marketing manager at IBM in its office products division in San Francisco. Her termination as a marketing manager at IBM came about as a result of an accusation made by her immediate super*244visor, defendant Callahan, of a romantic relationship with the manager of a rival office products firm, QYX.

Factual Background

IBM is an international manufacturer of computers, office equipment and telecommunications systems. As well, it offers broad general services in the data processing field. It is reputed to be the single most successful high technology firm in the world. It is also a major force in the low technology field of typewriters and office equipment.

IBM is an employer traditionally thought to provide great security to its employees as well as an environment of openness and dignity. The company is organized into divisions, and each division is, to an extent, independent of others. The company prides itself on providing career opportunities to its employees, and respondent represents a good example of this. She started in 1967 as a receptionist in the Philadelphia Data Center. She was told that “career opportunities are available to [employees] as long as they are performing satisfactorily and are willing to accept new challenges.” While she worked at the data center in Philadelphia, she attended night school and earned a baccalaureate degree. She was promoted to equipment scheduler and not long after received her first merit award. The company moved her to Atlanta, Georgia where she spent 15 months as a data processor. She was transferred to the office products division and was assigned the position of “marketing support representative” in San Francisco where she trained users (i.e., customers) of newly purchased IBM equipment. Respondent was promoted to “product planner” in 1973 where her duties included overseeing the performance of new office products in the marketplace. As a product planner, she moved to Austin, Texas and later to Lexington, Kentucky. Thereafter, at the urging of her managers that she go into sales in the office products division, she enrolled at the IBM sales school in Dallas. After graduation, she was assigned to San Francisco.

Her territory was the financial district. She was given a performance plan by her management which set forth the company’s expectations of her. She was from time to time thereafter graded against that plan on a scale of one through five with a grade of one being the highest. After her first year on the job, she was given a rating of one and was felt by her manager to be a person who rated at the top of IBM’s scale.

A little over a year after she began in San Francisco, IBM reorganized its office products division into two separate functions, one called office systems and another called office products. Respondent was assigned to *245office systems; again she was given ratings of one and while there received a series of congratulatory letters from her superiors and was promoted to marketing representative. She was one of the most successful sales persons in the office and received a number of prizes and awards for her sales efforts.1 IBM’s system of rewarding salespersons has a formalistic aspect about it that allows for subtle distinctions to be made while putting great emphasis on performance; respondent exercised that reward system to its fullest. She was a very successful seller of typewriters and other office equipment.

She was then put into a program called “Accelerated Career Development Program” which was a way of rewarding certain persons who were seen by their superiors as having management potential. IBM’s prediction of her future came true and in 1978 she was named a marketing manager in the office products branch.

IBM knew about respondent’s relationship with Matt Blum well before her appointment as a manager. Respondent met Blum in 1976 when he was an account manager for IBM. That they were dating was widely known within the organization. In 1977 Blum left IBM to join QYX, an IBM competitor, and was transferred to Philadelphia. When Blum returned to San Francisco in the summer of 1978, IBM personnel were aware that he and respondent began dating again. This seemed to present no problems to respondent’s superiors, as Callahan confirmed when she was promoted to manager. Respondent testified: “Somewhat in passing, Phil said: I heard the other day you were dating Matt Blum, and I said: Oh. And he said, I don’t have any problem with that. You’re my number one pick. I just want to assure you that you are my selection.” The relationship with Blum was also known to Regional Manager Gary Nelson who agreed with Callahan. Neither Callahan nor Nelson raised any issue of conflict of interest because of the Blum relationship.

Respondent flourished in her management position, and the company, apparently grateful for her efforts, gave her a $4,000 merit raise in 1979 and told her that she was doing a good job. A week later, her manager, Phillip Callahan, left a message that he wanted to see her.

When she walked into Callahan’s office he confronted her with the question of whether she was dating Matt Blum. She wondered at the relevance *246of the inquiry and he said the dating constituted a “conflict of interest,” and told her to stop dating Blum or lose her job and said she had a “couple of days to a week” to think about it.2

The next day Callahan called her in again, told her “he had made up her mind for her,” and when she protested, dismissed her.3 IBM and Callahan claim that he merely “transferred” respondent to another division.

*247Discussion

Respondent’s claims of wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress were both submitted to the jury. Appellant argues that the jury should not have been permitted to consider the issue of wrongful discharge because as a matter of law the offer of reassignment cannot be considered a wrongful discharge. In developing this argument, IBM attempts to change the nature of this case from one of wrongful termination into a debate about constructive discharge through an alleged administrative reassignment.

The test for the court here is substantial evidence (see Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 922 [148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980]) and without any question there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict that the respondent was wrongfully discharged rather than routinely reassigned.

The initial discussion between Callahan and respondent of her relationship with Blum is important. We must accept the version of the facts most favorable to the respondent herein. (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480].) When Callahan questioned her relationship with Blum, respondent invoked her right to privacy in her personal life relying on existing IBM policies. A threshold inquiry is thus presented whether respondent could reasonably rely on those policies for job protection. Any conflicting action by the company would be wrongful in that it would constitute a violation of her contract rights. (Lord v. Goldberg (1889) 81 Cal. 596 [22 P. 1126]; Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311 [171 Cal.Rptr. 917].)

Under the common law rule codified in Labor Code section 2922, an employment contract of indefinite duration is, in general, terminable at “the will” of either party. This common law rule has been considerably altered by the recognition of the Supreme Court of California that implicit in any such relationship or contract is an underlying principle that requires the parties to deal openly and fairly with one another. (Seaman’s Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 752 [206 Cal.Rptr. 354, 686 P.2d 1158].) This general requirement of fairness has been identified as the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330, 9 A.L.R. 4th 314].) The covenant of good faith and fair dealing embraces a number of rights, obligations, and considerations implicit in contractual relations and certain other relationships. At least two of those considerations are relevant herein. The duty of fair dealing by an employer *248is, simply stated, a requirement that like cases be treated alike. Implied in this, of course, is that the company, if it has rules and regulations, apply those rules and regulations to its employees as well as affording its employees their protection.

As can be seen from an analysis of other cases, this is not in any substantial way a variation from general contract law in California, for if an employee has the right in an employment contract (as distinct from an implied covenant), the courts have routinely given her the benefit of that contract. (Rest.2d Contracts, § 81; 1A Corbin on Contracts (1963) § 152, pp. 13-17; see also cases cited in Pugh, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 325.) Thus, the fair dealing portion of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is at least the right of an employee to the benefit of rules and regulations adopted for his or her protection.

In this case, there is a close question of whether those rules or regulations permit IBM to inquire into the purely personal life of the employee. If so, an attendant question is whether such a policy was applied consistently, particularly as between men and women. The distinction is important because the right of privacy, a constitutional right in California (City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 879, 883 [178 Cal.Rptr. 435]), could be implicated by the IBM inquiry. Much of the testimony below concerned what those policies were. The evidence was conflicting on the meaning of certain IBM policies. We observe ambiguity in the application but not in the intent. The “Watson Memo” (so called because it was signed by a former chairman of IBM) provided as follows:

“To All IBM Managers:

“The line that separates an individual’s on-the-job business life from his other life as a private citizen is at times well-defined and at other times indistinct. But the line does exist, and you and I, as managers in IBM, must be able to recognize that line.

“I have seen instances where managers took disciplinary measures against employees for actions or conduct that are not rightfully the company’s concern. These managers usually justified their decisions by citing their personal code of ethics and morals or by quoting some fragment of company policy that seemed to support their position. Both arguments proved unjust on close examination. What we need, in every case, is balanced judgment which weighs the needs of the business and the rights of the individual.

*249“Our primary objective as IBM managers is to further the business of this company by leading our people properly and measuring quantity and quality of work and effectiveness on the job against clearly set standards of responsibility and compensation. This is performance—and performance is, in the final analysis, the one thing that the company can insist on from everyone.

“We have concern with an employee’s off-the-job behavior only when it reduces his ability to perform regular job assignments, interferes with the job performance of other employees, or if his outside behavior affects the reputation of the company in a major way. When on-the-job performance is acceptable, I can think of few situations in which outside activities could result in disciplinary action or dismissal.

“When such situations do come to your attention, you should seek the advice and counsel of the next appropriate level of management and the personnel department in determining what action—if any—is called for. Action should be taken only when a legitimate interest of the company is injured or jeopardized. Furthermore the damage must be clear beyond reasonable doubt and not based on hasty decisions about what one person might think is good for the company.

“IBM’s first basic belief is respect for the individual, and the essence of this belief is a strict regard for his right to personal privacy. This idea should never be compromised easily or quickly.

“/s/ Tom Watson, Jr.”

It is clear that this company policy insures to the employee both the right of privacy and the right to hold a job even though “off-the-job behavior” might not be approved of by the employee’s manager.

IBM had adopted policies governing employee conduct. Some of those policies were collected in a document known as the “Performance and Recognition” (PAR) Manual. IBM relies on the following portion of the PAR Manual:

“A conflict of interest can arise when an employee is involved in activity for personal gain, which for any reason is in conflict with IBM’s business interests. Generally speaking, ‘moonlighting’ is defined as working at some activity for personal gain outside of your IBM job. If you do perform outside work, you have a special responsibility to avoid any conflict with IBM’s business interests.

*250“Obviously, you cannot solicit or perform in competition with IBM product or service offerings. Outside work cannot be performed on IBM time, including ‘personal’ time off. You cannot use IBM equipment, materials, resources, or ‘inside’ information for outside work. Nor should you solicit business or clients or perform outside work on IBM premises.

“Employees must be free of any significant investment or association of their own or of their immediate family’s [ízc], in competitors or suppliers, which might interfere or be thought to interfere with the independent exercise of their judgment in the best interests of IBM.”

This policy of IBM is entitled “Gifts” and appears to be directed at “moonlighting” and soliciting outside business or clients on IBM premises. It prohibits “significant investment” in competitors or suppliers of IBM. It also prohibits “association” with such persons “which might interfere or be thought to interfere with the independent exercise of their judgment in the best interests of IBM.”

Callahan based his action against respondent on a “conflict of interest.” But the record shows that IBM did not interpret this policy to prohibit a romantic relationship. Callahan admitted that there was no company rule or policy requiring an employee to terminate friendships with fellow employees who leave and join competitors.4 Gary Nelson, Callahan’s superior, also confirmed that IBM had no policy against employees socializing with competitors.

This issue was hotly contested with respondent claiming that the “conflict of interest” claim was a pretext for her unjust termination. Whether it was presented a fact question for the jury.

Do the policies reflected in this record give IBM a right to terminate an employee for a conflict of interest? The answer must be yes, but whether respondent’s conduct constituted such was for the jury. We observe that while respondent was successful, her primary job did not give her access to sensitive information which could have been useful to competitors. She was, after all, a seller of typewriters and office equipment. Respondent’s brief makes much of the concession by IBM that there was no evidence whatever that respondent had given any information or help to IBM’s competitor QYX. It really is no concession at all; she did not have the information or *251help to give. Even so, the question is one of substantial evidence. The evidence is abundant that there was no conflict of interest by respondent.

It does seem clear that an overall policy established by IBM chairman Watson was one of no company interest in the outside activities of an employee so long as the activities did not interfere with the work of the employee. Moreover, in the last analysis, it may be simply a question for the jury to decide whether, in the application of these policies, the right was conferred on IBM to inquire into the personal or romantic relationships its managers had with others. This is an important question because IBM, in attempting to reargue the facts to us, casts this argument in other terms, namely: that it had a right to inquire even if there was no evidence that such a relationship interfered with the discharge of the employee’s duties because it had the effect of diminishing the morale of the employees answering to the manager. This is the “Caesar’s wife” argument; it is merely a recast of the principal argument and asks the same question in different terms.5 The same answer holds in both cases: there being no evidence to support the more direct argument, there is no evidence to support the indirect argument.

Moreover, the record shows that the evidence of rumor was not a basis for any decline in the morale of the employees reporting to respondent. Employees Mary Hrize and Wayne Fyvie, who reported to respondent’s manager that she was seen at a tea dance at the Hyatt Regency with Matt Blum and also that she was not living at her residence in Marin, did not believe that those rumors in any way impaired her abilities as a manager. In the initial confrontation between respondent and her superior the assertion of the right to be free of inquiries concerning her personal life was based on substantive direct contract rights she had flowing to her from IBM policies. Further, there is no doubt that the jury could have so found and on this record we must assume that they did so find.

The Claim of Instructional Error

Appellant claims that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury with respect to the standard set forth in special instruction number 2. However, it is clear that the court’s special instructions numbers 2 [definition of good *252cause], 33 [employer good faith in honest but mistaken belief], 22 [employer business judgment and sensitive positions] and 3 [factors for good faith discharge] adequately covered the issue and we discern no error in either the instructions or the standards to be applied by the jury. Indeed in the court’s special instruction number 3 the jury was given seven factors that they could take into account in determining whether an employer acted in good faith or bad faith in discharging an employee from employment.6

Thus the court instructed the jury on the several separate theories of law including the several factual accounts that gave support to plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge including defendant’s claim that such discharge was privileged.

In the recent case of Seaman’s Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d 752, the Supreme Court noted that certain other contractual relationships characterized by elements of public interest, adhesion and fiduciary responsibility may well be subject to tort action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (36 Cal.3d at pp. 768-769.)

The court went on to suggest that an employment relationship might give rise to tort remedies because the “relationship has some of the same characteristics as the relationship between insurer and insured.” (Id., at p. 769, fn. 6; see also Wallis v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1109 [207 Cal.Rptr. 123] [pension agreement held to contain characteristics which allow a tort cause of action for breach].)

The court found it unnecessary to directly address the issue, enunciating a broader principle that “. . .a party to a contract may incur tort remedies when, in addition to breaching the contract, it seeks to shield itself from liability by denying, in bad faith and without probable cause, that the contract exists.” (Seaman’s, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 769.) The lesson to be derived seems to be that denial of the existence of a contract without more is not actionable in tort.

*253In the case at bar, Callahan denied the employment rights asserted by respondent. At the second meeting he “stonewalled” respondent when she insisted on her rights and then fired her when she persisted. The conduct of the breaching party is the focus of the tort, particularly where there is an attempt to shield oneself from liability, in bad faith and without probable cause. Here, the “conflict of interest” charge was untrue and was used as a pretext to legitimate the termination. “Probable cause” would have been some reasonable basis for assuming that a significant company interest was at stake. There is no such evidence claimed by IBM. It is the admitted absence of any such evidence that leads us to conclude there was no probable cause here. Thus, the charge was made in bad faith and without probable cause.

The jury was. specifically instructed on “bad faith.” (See special instruction No. 3, supra.) Moreover, in instruction number 33 the judge told the jury that “an employer who acts in good faith on an honest but mistaken belief that discharge of an employee is required by legitimate business interests has not committed a wrongful discharge of the employee.” The failure to give such an instruction, tailored appropriately to the facts of the case, was the principal reason for the reversal in Seaman’s, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pages 769-770.7

Thus the principle enunciated in Seaman’s, that a party to a contractual relationship may not, in denying the existence of the contract, do so in bad faith and without probable cause, focuses necessarily on the actual conduct of the breaching party. It is not so much the duty owed under the contract as the duty arising from the relationship of one party to another. (See Sloane v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co. (1896) 111 Cal. 668, 676, 677 [44 P. 320].) That duty, at least, is implied from the formulation of the tort, namely, to act without bad faith and with probable cause. Here, Callahan breached that duty. The issue put to the jury was whether the conflict of interest charge was a pretext for firing respondent. This question required the jury to decide if Callahan had any belief in the existence of such a breach of company policy. On this record, the jury found that he did not. The evidence supports the jury verdict.

*254 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The contract rights in an employment agreement or the convenant of good faith and fair dealing gives both employer and employee the right to breach and to respond in damages. Here, however, the question is if IBM elected to exercise that right, should it also be liable for punitive damages because of its intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue is whether the conduct of the marketing manager of IBM was “extreme and outrageous,” a question involving the objective facts of what happened in the confrontation between the employee and employer as well as the special susceptibility of suffering of the employee.

The general rule is that this tort, in essence, requires the defendant’s conduct to be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 498-499 [86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216], particularly at fn. 5 quoting Rest.2d Torts § 46, com. d.)8

The question is reduced to the inquiry of whether Callahan’s statements and conduct could be found by the jury to fall within doctrinal requirements. “ ‘It is for the court to determine whether on the evidence severe emotional distress can be found; it is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, it has in fact existed.’” (Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397 [89 Cal.Rptr. 78, 47 A.L.R.3d 286].) “Where reasonable men may differ” the court must instruct the jury on the law and entrust the factual determination to it. (Fuentes v. Perez (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 163, 172 [136 Cal.Rptr. 275].) The finding on this cause of action as reflected herein is sufficient to support the award of punitive damages. (Fletcher, supra, at p. 404.)

The jury was entitled to consider the evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct in light of the June 7 exchange followed by Callahan’s conduct and *255pretextual statements, as well as in light of express corporate policy as manifested by the Watson memo. Indeed, the concern of the Watson memo is also a right protected by law. As we earlier noted “the right of privacy is unquestionably a ‘fundamental interest of our society’ ” (City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra, 125 Cal.App.3d 879, 882.) It is guaranteed to all people by article I, section 1, of the state Constitution. So the question is whether the invasion of plaintiff’s privacy rights by her employer, in the setting of this case, constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct. The jury by special verdict so found.

To determine if Callahan’s conduct could reach the level of extreme, outrageous, and atrocious conduct, requires detailed examination. First, there was a decided element of deception in Callahan acting as if the relationship with Blum was something new. The evidence was clear he knew of the involvement of respondent and Blum well before her promotion. Second, he acted in flagrant disregard of IBM policies prohibiting him from inquiring into respondent’s “off job behavior.” By giving respondent “a few days” to think about the choice between job and lover, he implied that if she gave up Blum she could have her job. He then acted without giving her “a few days to think about it” or giving her the right to choose.

So far the conduct is certainly unfair but not atrocious. What brings Callahan’s conduct to an actionable level is the way he brought these several elements together in the second meeting with respondent. He said, after calling her in, “I’m making the decision for you.” The implications of his statement were richly ambiguous, meaning she could not act or think for herself, or that he was acting in her best interest, or that she persisted in a romantic involvement inconsistent with her job. When she protested, he fired her.

The combination of statements and conduct would under any reasoned view tend to humiliate and degrade respondent. To be denied a right granted to all other employees for conduct unrelated to her work was to degrade her as a person. His unilateral action in purporting to remove any free choice on her part contrary to his earlier assurances also would support a conclusion that his conduct was intended to emphasize that she was powerless to do anything to assert her rights as an IBM employee. And such powerlessness is one of the most debilitating kinds of human oppression. The sum of such evidence clearly supports the jury finding of extreme and outrageous conduct.

Accordingly we conclude that the emotional distress cause of action was amply proved and supports the award of punitive damages. (Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 21 Cal.3d 910, 927-928.)

*256The judgment is affirmed.

Racanelli, P. J., and Holmdahl, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied December 28, 1984, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 27, 1985. Kaus, J., Grodin, J., and Lucas, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Opinion

PHELAN, J.*

In the first of these consolidated cases, appellant Louis Pettus (Pettus) timely appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of two psychiatrists, respondents Dr. Kathleen Bell Unger and Dr. Alan Cole, as to his claims of unauthorized release of medical information in violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq. (hereinafter the CMIA or the Act)),1 and invasion of his constitutional right of privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § l).2 At the close of Pettus’s case-in-chief in a bench trial, the court granted Drs. Unger’s and Cole’s motions for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8.

In the second case, Pettus seeks review of the court’s judgment in favor of his employer, respondent E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. (hereinafter Du Pont), on claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unauthorized use of medical information, and invasion of his constitutional right of privacy.3 The court denied Du Font’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, but found against plaintiff on all claims following Du Font’s presentation of its case-in-chief.

*414The issues presented in these consolidated appeals include: (1) Whether and to what extent medical information compiled during the psychiatric examination of an employee may be disclosed to the employer by a psychiatrist without employee authorization or consent, where the employee has requested leave from work because of a stress-related disability, the examination is required under the employer’s short-term disability policy, and the examination has been arranged and paid for by the employer; and (2) Whether discharging the same employee for refusal to comply with his employer’s demand that he enroll in an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program constitutes a violation of the employee’s state constitutional right to privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1) and/or wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

We conclude as a matter of law that Drs. Cole and Unger violated the CMIA by providing Du Pont a detailed report of their psychiatric examinations of Pettus without a specific written authorization for such disclosure. As to his claim under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution, we conclude that Pettus made a prima facie showing of invasion of privacy by the psychiatrists but, based on evidence presented by Du Pont in its defense case, there is a serious question whether Pettus waived this claim by voluntarily disclosing to his supervisors at Du Pont much of the sensitive personal information that was subsequently transmitted in the psychiatrists’ reports. We will, therefore, remand for further evidentiary proceedings so that Drs. Cole and Unger may have an opportunity to present a defense to that claim.

As to Pettus’s claims against his former employer, we conclude that Du Pont violated both the CMIA and Pettus’s state constitutional rights to autonomy and informational privacy when it terminated his employment because of his refusal to comply with its demand that he enroll in an inpatient alcohol treatment program. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court as to all respondents and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Introduction.

The material facts of this case are essentially undisputed. Appellant Pettus had been working for Du Pont for 22 years when, in June 1988, he sought to take time off from work because he was suffering from a disabling stress-related condition. Before requesting disability leave, Pettus sought medical help for his stress condition from his personal physician and from an *415outpatient psychological counseling program at the Sierra Clinic. Both recommended to Du Pont that Pettus’s stress condition warranted a disability leave.

Under Du Font’s short-term disability leave policy, Pettus was required to submit to examination by a Du Pont-selected doctor for verification of his need for disability leave. The policy provided for up to six months’ leave, with pay, for nonoccupational illnesses or injuries. Du Pont was “self-insured” for purposes of its short-term disability leave policy.

In the course of having his disability verified, Pettus submitted to three medical examinations arranged and paid for by Du Pont. The first examination was with Dr. Collins, a physician under contract with Du Pont to provide general medical services for Du Pont employees. Dr. Collins verified Pettus’s stress condition, and his need for time off, but believed a psychiatric evaluation was necessary. She recommended to Du Pont that Pettus should see Dr. Cole. The second examination was a psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole verified appellant’s stress condition and agreed that appellant had a legitimate medical need for time off work. Finally, Pettus underwent another psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Unger. Du Pont arranged for Pettus to see Dr. Unger after Dr. Cole reported that Pettus’s stress condition might be linked to an alcohol abuse problem. Dr. Cole recommended Dr. Unger to Du Pont because she is a specialist in chemical dependency cases.

Pettus was terminated from his job at Du Pont on September 21, 1988, because he refused to enter a 30-day inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program that Du Pont required as a condition of continued employment. Pettus’s alcohol consumption became a matter of concern to Du Pont when Drs. Cole and Unger disclosed to Du Pont in their disability evaluation reports that his stress condition might be caused or exacerbated by misuse of alcohol. However, the trial court specifically found that, “From all the evidence it is undisputed that plaintiff was not at any time an alcoholic, nor perhaps even an alcohol abuser in the more common lay use of the word.” Drs. Unger and Cole also disclosed in their reports to Du Pont that Pettus believed his employers were racist, and that he had violent thoughts regarding a coworker. Pettus contends that he did not authorize the doctors to disclose the full contents of their evaluations to Du Pont, and that the unauthorized release of such information to his supervisors, and the subsequent use of that information as the basis for terminating his employment, violated the CMIA and his state constitutional right to privacy.

B. Pettus’s Employment History With Du Pont.

Pettus is a 52-year-old African-American who began employment with Du Pont in a South San Francisco plant as a laborer in 1966. Between 1966 and *4161976, he rose through the ranks and became a first-line supervisor in various departments at the plant. When this plant was closed in 1982, Pettus was transferred to another in Flint, Michigan, where he retained his position as a supervisor. Shortly after arriving in Flint in November 1982, Pettus began to perceive that he was being harassed and discriminated against by his supervisor, Norman Conn. Pettus believed this was the result of his dating a White woman in whom Mr. Conn, who was White, also had a romantic interest. Pettus developed symptoms of severe emotional distress as a result of this perceived racially based harassment, including a rash for which he sought medical treatment.

In April 1984, Mr. Conn informed Pettus that he would be fired. There was conflicting testimony about Pettus’s performance at Flint. Pettus testified that to his knowledge he had performed well. Other evidence presented at trial indicated that he had received “generally favorable” performance evaluations during his first year in Flint. However, there was also testimony that Pettus’s shift had received several customer complaints during the last three or four months of his employment at the Flint plant, and that Pettus was criticized for failure to prepare an incident report, for miscommunication of shift changes, for poor preparation of meeting notes, and for time card errors. To avoid termination, Pettus transferred to a position as a warehouse operator in a Du Pont warehouse in Los Angeles, incurring a 50 percent reduction in salary.4

Pettus believed that upon transferring to Los Angeles he would be given a position comparable to the one he held in Flint, and he became increasingly frustrated when this opportunity did not materialize. He continued to be bothered by the poor treatment he believed he had received in Flint. His physical and emotional problems returned: stress, skin rash and—for the first time—high blood pressure.

In July 1987, at his request, Pettus transferred to a Du Pont automotive finishing plant in Hayward, California. He was initially employed as a warehouse worker, but in December 1987 he was given the chance to move *417up to a position as a sales assistant. The position never became permanent because he was not able to master the computer skills required for the job in the time allotted. During this time, Pettus continued to be bothered by the events in Flint, believing they contributed to his lack of career advancement with Du Pont.

In the fall of 1987 Pettus felt his anxiety return and his rash worsened. He sought medical attention from his personal physician who referred him to a psychiatrist, Dr. Walter Shervington. Pettus consulted with Dr. Shervington five to seven times in 1987.

During this time, Pettus was especially troubled by an incident relating to his failure to secure the sales assistant position. He had asked for help in learning the necessary computer skills from a colleague, Judy Mendonca, a White woman who had also trained for the position. Mendonca reported to Du Pont management that she was uncomfortable with Pettus’s inquiries, and he was subsequently instructed not to speak to her for any reason. Pettus believed Ms. Mendonca’s unwillingness to help him was motivated by racism. After the incident, he had stress reactions upon seeing her at work that caused him to get headaches and to become angry to the point where he sometimes felt like striking her.

C. Pettus’s Initial Requests for Time off of Work.

At a routine company physical examination on May 5, 1988, Pettus complained of his stress and skin rash to Dr. Carol Collins, a physician under contract with Du Pont to provide medical evaluation, physicals and treatment for Du Pont employees. Dr. Collins recommended that Pettus see a specialist dealing in stress conditions.

Soon thereafter, on or around May 24, 1988, Pettus sought stress counseling at the Sierra Clinic. On June 2, at the suggestion of a Sierra Clinic doctor, Pettus called his supervisor, Bill Taylor, to ask for a 90-day leave. Taylor told him he could not have a 90-day leave without the concurrence of a Du Pont physician in accordance with the company policy regarding requests for disability benefits. However, Bob Rotter, the division manager at the Hayward plant, became concerned about stress levels in the warehouse and worried that other employees might be experiencing problems similar to Pettus’s.5 Accordingly, Rotter asked Dr. Collins to arrange an appointment for Pettus with Dr. Dominick Fisichella, a dermatologist, in order to determine the cause of Pettus’s skin rash. Dr. Fisichella examined appellant on *418June 3, 1988, and determined that appellant’s skin condition was not work related and was not disabling. Based on the dermatologist’s findings, Rotter ordered Pettus to return to work on the following Monday, June 6.

On June 6, 1988, Pettus met with Rotter in his office. During that meeting, Pettus told Rotter that the stress he was suffering stemmed from the Flint incident and that he was angry at “members of management,” a group in which Rotter believed himself to be included, and that the mere sight of Du Pont products could trigger his anger.6 Pettus also told Rotter he felt anger toward Judy Mendonca, such that “he could hit her.”7

On June 10,1988, Dr. Ephrom of the Sierra Clinic wrote a letter to Taylor recommending that Pettus be given a 90-day leave of absence due to stress. Dr. Ephrom asserted that Pettus was suffering from an adjustment disorder that had been “brought on by a chronic job stress situation.” Taylor told appellant he would forward the request for disability leave to Rotter. Rotter denied appellant’s request for disability leave. According to Pettus, Rotter denied the request because he “didn’t see anything on the job that was causing me to have any problems.”

Pettus continued to work, but his stress and its physical manifestations persisted. He again sought medical treatment from his personal physician, Dr. Coleman. Dr. Coleman found that appellant’s blood pressure was elevated and also detected a slight heart murmur. On June 14, 1988, he wrote a letter recommending that Pettus “remain off work for the next thirty days . . . because of his medical condition.” Pettus submitted this letter to Taylor, who denied the request for leave because Dr. Coleman was not Du Font’s doctor.

Pettus was instructed to see the company physician, Dr. Collins, on June 16, 1988, to have his request for disability leave evaluated. Dr. Collins performed a repeat physical exam and also discussed with appellant some of his personal stresses and his difficulty sleeping. Dr. Collins reported her conclusions in a June 17, 1988, letter to Rotter, her sole contact at Du Pont. In that letter, Dr. Collins noted appellant’s elevated blood pressure, heart murmur and rash, and concluded that these physical problems would not prevent him from performing his job.8 Nevertheless, she recommended that Pettus not return to work because of the high level of mental stress he was

*419experiencing. She reported that Pettus’s stress seemed related to frustration over employment circumstances which began when he was working in Michigan,9 but stated that she could not tell what proportion of his stress was due to work or other personal difficulties. Dr. Collins recommended that Pettus be given at least 30 days’ leave in order to pursue intensive psychotherapy and personality assessment. At the end of that time, if further leave was required, Dr. Collins recommended that Pettus be reassessed by his therapist. Pursuant to Dr. Collins’s evaluation, Pettus was immediately granted a 30-day paid disability leave.

Dr. Collins suggested to Rotter that appellant consult with Dr. Cole to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Collins set up an appointment with Dr. Cole for Pettus. She wrote Dr. Cole a letter informing him that Pettus was a Du Pont employee being referred by the company for psychiatric assessment in connection with a “disability case” he had “filed against the company.” For background information, Dr. Collins also forwarded to Dr. Cole her June 17, 1988, letter to Rotter, in which she had reported her findings from the June 16, 1988, physical examination.

D. Pettus’s Consultation With Dr. Cole.

Rotter informed Pettus of the appointment with Dr. Cole, which was scheduled for June 23, 1988. Pettus believed this appointment was necessary to secure disability leave. He understood that the purpose of the visit was to verify the physical and emotional problems he was having in order to qualify for disability leave under the company policy. Pettus knew the visit was not entirely confidential. He understood that Dr. Cole would report back to Du Pont a conclusion about whether his stress condition warranted disability *420leave, but believed any such communication would be limited to this conclusionary purpose. It is undisputed that Dr. Cole never obtained written authorization from appellant to release medical information to Du Pont.10

During the examination, Pettus disclosed detailed information about his family history; his drinking habits in Flint; the incidents in Flint and in Hayward where he felt he was the victim of racial discrimination; his belief that Du Pont and its management were racist; his thoughts that he was beginning not to like White people, and that this bothered him; and his reoccurring skin rash.

Approximately an hour after the examination, Dr. Cole spoke with Rotter on the telephone and discussed the contents of his interview of Pettus. Dr. Cole discussed in detail appellant’s medical and emotional condition, telling Rotter that he thought appellant had an alcohol problem, that this could potentially be his most serious problem, and that appellant had a great deal of frustration and emotional difficulty. Dr. Cole opined that Pettus was disabled by work-related stress, and recommended that Pettus be given leave. Prior to this phone conversation, Dr. Cole had had no direct contact with anyone connected to Du Pont. At the time of the call he was not aware of Rotter’s position at Du Pont or of his relationship to Pettus, that of a second-line supervisor.

On June 23, 1988, Dr. Cole prepared a written report about his examination of Pettus, which was addressed to Rotter with a copy to Dr. Collins. Dr. Cole’s report contained details of Pettus’s work and family history, his drinking habits, his problems in Flint, and his thoughts of violence towards Ms. Mendonca, as well as his current psychiatric symptoms. More specifically, Dr. Cole reported that Pettus was “extremely angry, particularly at one of his coworkers, and [was] having a hard time controlling these feelings.” Dr. Cole reported Pettus’s comments about Judy Mendonca, as follows: . . Every time I see her in particular, I get awful, awful upset.’ . . . ‘That’s where the headaches come from. When I see her in the office, I look at her and just get angry. Du [P]ont has never been fair with minorities. I have been able to cope with racism all my life. I’ve begun to dislike white people, which is bothering me. I guess it’s just harder to cope with it now that I’m getting older.’ ” Dr. Cole also reported Pettus’s statement that he began “drinking excessively” three months before he was discharged from *421the Flint plant in 1984. In response to Dr. Cole’s question as to whether he had any guilt feelings, appellant said, “ T really regret that I didn’t hurt the guy in Flint. He ruined my whole life and I let him get away with it. I think if I saw him again, I would really try to kill him. I need to get over that.’ ” 11

In his written report, Dr. Cole concluded that appellant was genuinely disabled, and that it would not be in appellant’s best interests to return to work. Accordingly, on June 24,1988, Rotter called Pettus at home to inform him that Du Pont was granting him a 90-day disability leave. Dr. Cole further concluded that there was a “distinct possibility” that Pettus was suffering from “a primary alcohol problem.” Thus, Dr. Cole recommended that appellant be examined by a specialist in substance abuse cases. Following this suggestion, Dr. Collins referred Rotter to Dr. Unger, a psychiatrist with expertise in chemical dependency. Rotter arranged for Dr. Unger to meet with Pettus on July 6, 1988.

E. Pettus’s Consultation With Dr. Unger.

About a week before appellant’s appointment with Dr. Unger, Rotter sent a cover letter to Dr. Unger along with Pettus’s medical file, which contained the reports from Drs. Collins and Cole. In the letter, Rotter informed Dr. Unger that he had told Pettus of the appointment and that Pettus “appeared willing and cooperative.” Rotter also specifically requested that Dr. Unger: (1) determine Pettus’s mental condition and whether it would affect his ability to perform his duties as a warehouseman; (2) determine how deeply rooted his feelings of anger toward his fellow employees were; (3) determine whether he had an alcohol and/or other substance abuse problem, and, if so, how it affected his working relationships in Hayward; and (4) make recommendations for further treatment and how to proceed. In addition to the letter, Rotter communicated with Dr. Unger prior to Pettus’s evaluation in a telephone call he placed to set up the appointment. In that conversation, Rotter told Dr. Unger that there was an urgent need for the interview to take place as soon as possible because he was concerned about the potential for Pettus to commit some violent act as a result of his hostile feeling toward Du Pont and Judy Mendonca.

Dr. Unger met with Pettus on July 6, 1988. Pettus testified that the meeting lasted no more than 30 minutes. Dr. Unger maintained it was about two hours long. Pettus understood the purpose of the interview with Dr. *422Unger to be to the same as that of the examinations by Drs. Collins and Cole, to evaluate his request for stress-related disability leave. He was not aware of Rotter’s written request to Dr. Unger for specific information, or that Rotter intended the interview to be in part an evaluation of the likelihood he might commit some violent act. He believed that Dr. Unger’s communication with Du Pont would be limited to a conclusion about whether he was, in fact, suffering a stress-related disability. It is undisputed that Dr. Unger never obtained written authorization from Pettus to disclose medical information to Du Pont.12

Based on her discussion with appellant, the reports of Drs. Collins and Cole, and a telephone conversation prior to the meeting with Rotter, Dr. Unger prepared a written report addressed to Rotter, which contained information about appellant’s family and work histories, his drinking habits, and his emotional condition. Specifically, Dr. Unger reported that Pettus suffered from deep-rooted and long-standing anger toward Du Pont, and was currently stressed beyond his ability to cope. She did not diagnose Pettus to be an alcoholic, but concluded that he was “using alcohol adversely,” and that his use of alcohol was having an impact on his emotional problems and his life generally. In answer to Rotter’s fear that Pettus might physically harm someone, Dr. Unger reported that appellant’s anger had recently focused on Ms. Mendonca, but that he was not a threat to anyone in the workplace.13 Dr. Unger explained that Pettus’s hostile feelings were normal and could even be therapeutic.14

The first of her nine recommendations, which were listed in order of importance, was that appellant abstain for three months from alcohol use, a suggestion which appellant had come up with on his own and was willing to try. The last was that Pettus be terminated by Du Pont. Dr. Unger’s other recommendations included experimenting with different medication, and establishing an exercise and nutritional program oriented toward weight loss.

*423On the morning following her evaluation of appellant, Dr. Unger spoke by telephone with Rotter and discussed the meeting and her recommendations with him in detail. During the time she was in communication with Rotter about Pettus, she knew him to be appellant’s supervisor and a manager at the Hayward plant.

F. Termination of Pettus’s Employment With Du Pont.

The written reports of Drs. Collins, Cole and Unger were sent to Joseph Montovino, Du Pont employee relations manager in Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. Montovino’s task was to coordinate a review of Pettus’s situation with Du Font’s medical and substance abuse groups. To that end, Mr. Montovino forwarded the reports to Dr. Alan J. Hay of Du Font’s corporate medical department, and to Walter Beam,15 the director of Du Font’s substance abuse program for its 140,000 employees worldwide. Based on their review of the reports and consultations between themselves and with Dr. Hay, Mr. Montovino and Dr. Beam decided that Pettus would be required to enter a 30-day, inpatient alcohol treatment program as a condition to his return to work.16 It was Dr. Beam’s opinion that such a program would provide the best chance for Pettus to return to work.

On August 1, 1988, Montovino and Rotter met with appellant to discuss his future with the company. Also in attendance at that meeting was Stephen Howard, regional manager for Du Pont. Pettus was told that in order to continue his employment with Du Pont, he would be required to enroll in an inpatient alcohol treatment program, possibly followed by a psychiatric program.17 If he was unwilling to attend such a program, then he had the alternatives of resigning and taking early permanent retirement, or seeking a *424disability retirement. Pettus expressed his desire to get his own physician’s opinion as to whether he was an alcoholic, which Du Pont allowed him to do.

Appellant tried to obtain an independent evaluation from his own psychiatrist, Dr. Shervington, but was unsuccessful in that attempt. Du Pont, for its part, tried to contact Dr. Shervington on numerous occasions between September 1 and September 15, but was also unsuccessful. Apparently, Dr. Shervington had met with Pettus on August 17, 1988, and informed him that he could not comply with his request for an opinion whether he needed treatment for alcohol abuse because he did not have enough information. However, Pettus did not tell Du Pont that he would not be able to provide an opinion from Dr. Shervington.

On September 21, 1988, Pettus received a letter from Rotter stating that he had to respond to Du Font’s demand that he enter the alcohol treatment program by September 26. Appellant’s employment was terminated on September 23, 1988, after he told Taylor that he would not agree to enter the alcohol rehabilitation program. At that point, Pettus discussed his dilemma with Dr. Shervington, who urged him to enroll in the alcohol treatment program, if only to demonstrate to Du Pont that he was not an alcoholic. Pettus then contacted Taylor to say he had changed his mind, but Taylor told him it was too late.

n. The Appeal From Judgment in Favor of Drs. Cole and Unger

A. Standard of Review.

As a threshold matter, we establish the standard of review for the judgment in favor of Drs. Cole and Unger. In granting that judgment, the trial court proceeded under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 which, in relevant part, provides: “After a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court, the other party . . . may move for a judgment. The court as trier of the facts shall weigh the evidence and may render a judgment in favor of the moving party . . . .” (Id., subd. (a).) The purpose of Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is to enable the court, when it finds at the completion of plaintiff’s case that the evidence does not justify requiring the defense to produce evidence, to weigh evidence and make findings of fact. (Connolley v. Bull (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 183 [65 Cal.Rptr. 689].)

The standard of review after a trial court issues judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 is the same as if the court had *425rendered judgment after a completed trial—that is, in reviewing the questions of fact decided by the trial court, the substantial evidence rule applies. An appellate court must view the evidence most favorably to the respondents and uphold the judgment if there is any substantial evidence to support it. (Rodriguez v. North American Rockwell Corp. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 441, 447 [104 Cal.Rptr. 678]; Miller v. Dussault (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 311, 316 [103 Cal.Rptr. 147].) However where, as here, we are called upon to review a conclusion of law based on undisputed facts, we are not bound by the trial court’s decision and are free to draw our own conclusions of law. (Torrey Pines Bank v. Hoffman (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 308, 317 [282 Cal.Rptr. 354].)

B. Pettus’s Claim Under Section 56.10.

Pettus first contends that, as a matter of law, Drs. Unger and Cole violated the CMIA when they disclosed to his supervisors at Du Pont the detailed reports of his psychiatric evaluations. For reasons we will elaborate, we agree.

1. An Overview of the CMIA.

The CMIA was originally enacted as Senate Bill No. 480 in 1979. (See Stats. 1979, ch. 773, § 1, p. 2645.) Senate Bill No. 480 was heavily criticized for being organizationally unsound, ambiguous and practically impossible to implement, and was subject to a series of moratoria which prevented it from ever taking effect. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Background Information to Sen. Bill No. 889; see also Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 30, 38 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 876 P.2d 999].) In 1981, Senate Bill No. 480 was repealed by Senate Bill No. 889, and the CMIA was reenacted as amended. (Stats. 1981, ch. 782, §§ 1.5, 2, p. 3040.) One major criticism of the original version of the CMIA was that it left unclear whether certain medical information could be released without an authorization. (Letter from California Hospital Association to Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sept. 21,1981.) Unfortunately, this shortcoming was not completely resolved when the Act was amended to its present form. (See Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 38-42.)

The basic scheme of the CMIA, as amended in 1981, is that a provider of health care must not disclose medical information without a written authorization from the patient. Section 56.10, subdivision (a), provides that: “No provider of health care shall disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).” As our Supreme Court has observed, “Considered *426together, the statutory provisions require a health care provider to hold confidential a patient’s medical information unless the information falls under one of several exceptions to the act.” (Heller v. Norcal Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 38.)

The “authorization” requirements, which are found in section 56.11, are detailed and demanding, reflecting the Legislature’s interest in assuring that medical information may be disclosed only for a narrowly defined purpose, to an identified party, for a limited period of time. For an authorization to be valid it must be handwritten or typed, in language clearly separate from any other language on the same page, and properly signed and dated by the patient or one of the permissible substitutes enumerated under the Act. The signature must serve no other purpose than to execute the authorization. (§56.11 subds. (a), (b) & (c).) The authorization must state “the specific uses and limitations on the types of medical information to be disclosed!,] HD . . . the name or functions of the provider of health care that may disclose the information!,] [H • • • the name or functions of the persons or entities authorized to receive the medical information!,] [H • • • the specific uses and limitations on the use of the medical information by the persons or entities authorized to receive the medical information!,] [Ü . . . a specific date after which the provider of health care is no longer authorized to disclose the medical information!,]" and that the person signing the authorization has been advised of the right to receive a copy of the authorization. (§ 56.11, subds. (d)-(i).)

Under normal circumstances, where there is no valid authorization there can be no disclosure. (§ 56.10, subd. (a).) However, a provider who has made an unauthorized disclosure is relieved from liability if it can show that the disclosure is excepted either by the mandatory (id., subd. (b)) or permissive (id., subd. (c)) provisions of the act, allowing disclosure of medical information without prior authorization under specified circumstances. In this case, there is no question that the disclosures were not made pursuant to a section 56.11 authorization.

The Act provides that disclosure is mandatory even in the absence of an authorization when compelled by court order, subpoena, or search warrant or “otherwise specifically required by law.” (§ 56.10, subd. (b)(l)-(7).) These mandatory disclosure provisions do not apply here.

The Act also provides that disclosure is permissible without an authorization in several types of situations. The dispute in this case is over which of these permissive disclosure provisions, if any, applies to the facts at hand and whether the disclosures made by Drs. Unger and Cole violated the applicable provision.

*427It is important to note that even the permissive disclosure exceptions do not always allow full disclosure of all medical information. The exceptions recognize that in some circumstances a legitimate need for access to medical information may conflict with an individual’s interest in keeping that information confidential, and attempt to strike a balance. Thus, under some of the exceptions described in section 56.10, subdivision (c)(1) through (14) the Legislature established parameters within which disclosure is permissible and allowed disclosure of only that information which is necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose addressed by the particular exception.

The list of permissive exceptions is lengthy, and some are difficult to rationalize. To discern which of the exceptions the Legislature intended to apply to the circumstances of this case, it is useful to look at the range of situations contemplated by the exceptions. Disclosure to other health care providers is permissible “for purposes of diagnosis or treatment of the patient.” (§ 56.10, subd. (c)(1).) Disclosure is permissible to an entity responsible for paying a medical bill (and to billing services) “to the extent necessary to allow responsibility for payment to be determined and payment to be made.” (Id.., subd. (c)(2), (3).) Disclosure is permissible to groups performing peer review “or to persons or organizations insuring, responsible for, or defending professional liability which a provider may incur,” if the groups or persons “are engaged in reviewing the competence or qualifications of health care professionals or in reviewing health care services with respect to medical necessity, level of care, quality of care, or justification of charges.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).) Disclosure is permissible for the purpose of licensing or accrediting a provider of health care (id., subd. (c)(5)); for the purpose of a coroner’s investigation (id., subd. (c)(6)); and for bona fide medical research, provided that no information so disclosed should be further disclosed by the recipient in any way which would permit identification of the patient (id., subd. (c)(7)).

Under section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8), a “provider of health care that has created medical information as a result of employment-related health care services to an employee conducted at the specific prior written request and expense of the employer may disclose to the employee’s employer that part of the information which: [H (A) Is relevant in a law suit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge to which the employer and the employee are parties and in which the patient has placed in issue his or her medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment, provided it may only be used or disclosed in connection with that proceeding. [<]D (B) Describes functional limitations of the patient that may entitle the patient to leave from work for medical reasons or limit the patient’s fitness to perform his or her present employment, provided that no statement of medical cause is included in the information disclosed.”

*428Section 56.10, subdivision (c)(9), provides: “Unless the provider is notified in writing of an agreement by the sponsor, insurer, or administrator to the contrary, the [medical] information may be disclosed to a sponsor, insurer, or administrator of a group or individual insured or uninsured plan or policy which the patient seeks coverage by or benefits from, if the information was created by the provider of health care as the result of services conducted at the specific prior written request and expense of the sponsor, insurer, or administrator for the purpose of evaluating the application for coverage or benefits.”

Disclosure is also permissible to a group practice plan for the purpose of administering the group practice plan (§56.10, subd. (c)(10)); to insurance agents in compliance with certain Insurance Code provisions (id., subd. (c)(ll)); to a probate court investigator under certain circumstances (id., subd. (c)(12)); to a tissue bank, under specified circumstances (id., subd. (c)(13)); and when the disclosure is “otherwise specifically authorized by law” (id., subd. (c)(14)).

Most of these permissive disclosure exceptions can be easily eliminated as inapplicable to the fact situation here. Respondents Unger and Cole argue that section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A) and (9) both apply, and that the disclosures made in this case were permitted under both subparagraphs. Appellant argues that subdivision (c)(8)(B) is the applicable provision and that the disclosures were not protected under it. Adhering to the fundamental canon of statutory interpretation to “give meaning to every word and phrase in the statute to accomplish a result consistent with the legislative purpose” (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1159 [278 Cal.Rptr. 614, 805 P.2d 873]), we read each exception listed in subdivision (c)(1) through (14) in pari materia. Doing so, we conclude that subdivision (c)(8)(B) is the provision most apposite to the facts at hand and that it therefore governs this case. We further conclude that the disclosures made by Drs. Unger and Cole exceeded the parameters established in subdivision (c)(8)(B), which limit the permissible disclosure to a description of any “functional limitations” and explicitly prohibit disclosure of “medical cause” of the limitation.18

2. Pettus was a “Patient” of Drs. Cole and Unger for Purposes of the CMIA.

Before turning to the merits of appellant’s claim under the CMIA, we must dispose of Dr. Cole’s threshold argument that Pettus is not protected by section 56.10 because he does not qualify as a “patient” within the *429meaning of the statute.19 We disagree with Dr. Cole’s interpretation, and find it contrary to both the letter and spirit of the statute. Under the CMIA, a patient is “any natural person, whether or not still living, who received health care services from a provider of health care and to whom medical information pertains.” (§ 56.05, subd. (c).) Another pertinent definition is that of “medical information,” which means “any individually identifiable information in possession of or derived from a provider of health care regarding a patient’s medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment.” (§ 56.05, subd. (b).)

Dr. Cole contends that no health care services were provided to or received by Pettus, and that, therefore, he was not a “patient” under section 56.10. In support of this contention Dr. Cole claims that the psychiatric evaluation he performed was for the sole purpose of advising Pettus’s employer of his findings with respect to appellant’s disability claim, not to advise Pettus. Though his report made explicit recommendations for treatment, he argues these recommendations were generated for Du Font’s information. He further contends that Pettus was not a “patient” because he saw Pettus on a single occasion, no care or treatment was contemplated, and no doctor/patient relationship existed between them.

When the definition of patient is construed in relation to the other statutory definitions and in view of the statute’s purpose, respondent Cole’s position is patently untenable. It is undisputed that Dr. Cole’s meeting with Pettus generated highly sensitive medical information which was subsequently reported to Du Pont. According to statutory definitions, “medical information” is information “derived from a provider of health care" and a patient is someone who has received health care services from a provider of health care and to whom medical information pertains. (§ 56.05, subds. (b), (c).) Unfortunately, the term “health care services” is not defined by the Act. However, logic dictates that in order for a health care provider to gather medical information about a person, the provider must have dealt with the person at some level and performed professional services of some type. By failing to include the term “health care services” in the list of definitions, the drafters failed to define the precise level of interaction between the provider and the subject necessary to constitute “health care services.” It is, however, appropriate to construe the term in a manner which effectuates the purpose of the statute. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. *4301159.) Doing so, we find that Pettus is a “patient” for purposes of section 56.10. The Legislature clearly intended for the statute to afford employees in Pettus’s situation—i.e., where the employer has requested and paid for a medical examination to determine the validity of a claim for medical leave benefits—some protection by imposing a duty on health care providers involved in the procedure a duty to maintain, at least to a limited degree, the confidentiality of the employee’s medical information. (See § 56.10, subd. (c)(8)(B).) Indeed, subdivision (c)(8)(B) expressly refers to an employee who is examined by a health care provider, at the employer’s request and expense, as a “patient.”

We do agree, however, that the traditional doctor/patient relationship, with the host of concomitant duties created by such a relationship, was not established between appellant and the respondent psychiatrists. This is the proposition for which both cases cited by Dr. Cole in his opening brief stand. In Felton v. Shaeffer (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 229 [279 Cal.Rptr. 713], the defendant physician performed a preemployment physical on plaintiff and made an erroneous conclusion about the plaintiff’s fitness which caused him to be rejected by the employer. The court held against the plaintiff in subsequent actions against the physician for negligence and medical malpractice, finding that defendant’s sole function was to provide information to the prospective employer, that no doctor/patient relationship was created, and that, therefore, defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. In Keene v. Wiggins (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 308 [138 Cal.Rptr. 3], plaintiff was a worker sent to defendant doctor by his workers’ compensation carrier for examination following an industrial accident. The doctor wrote a letter to the insurance carrier opining no treatment was necessary. Plaintiff received a copy of the report and allegedly relied on it to his detriment. The court held the doctor was not liable to the plaintiff for negligence or medical malpractice in making the report since the doctor conducted the examination only for the purpose of rating the plaintiff’s injury for the insurance carrier. The court further held that there was no doctor/patient relationship of the sort giving rise to a duty of care owed to the plaintiff in connection with the medical report.

In the case before us, plaintiff is similarly situated in that he is bringing an action against a doctor who examined him at the request of a third party, his employer, Du Pont. If Pettus brought a professional negligence claim against Dr. Cole or Dr. Unger, he would likely be defeated under the authority of Keene and Felton. Pettus, however, does not rely on common law theories of negligence or medical malpractice. Rather, he is seeking to enforce a duty of *431confidentiality codified in the CMIA. For purposes of that statute he is, clearly, a “patient.”20

3. Section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B) Governs the Type of Disclosure at Issue in This Case.

It is not clear from either the trial court’s reasons for decision or its comments at trial under which portion of section 56.10 the court rejected Pettus’s CMIA claim against Drs. Cole and Unger. In granting the nonsuit to the psychiatrists, the court concluded that Du Pont was entitled to “full and complete information,” stating: “It is the court’s opinion that doctors Unger and Cole both gave a report fully within the authorization of section 56.10, that there was nothing inappropriate, that the employer was indeed entitled to secure full and complete information. That was what they were doing. [cJfl First they sent him to a general doctor, and the general doctor said it has got some psychiatric overlay and underlay. [*]Q And the psychiatrist said I can’t tell if it is engendered from ingestion of a substance, whether overuse of sugar, or thyroid, or something else, or alcohol, or whether it is purely a psychiatric chemical problem within the mind. I don’t know. I think you need to talk to somebody that specializes in that area. [U And they did. And the doctor responded to the questions. [‘JQ I’m going to grant the non-suit as to the doctors.” When plaintiff’s counsel asked the court to clarify whether it made “a specific ruling on what exception to section 56.10[, subdivision] (a) applied,” the court replied, “No. 56.10. I’m not going to go further than that.”

In its reasons for decision, the trial court utterly failed to deal with the specific terms of the statute.21 The court prefaced its short discussion about the disclosure with its conclusion that Du Pont had the right to request and *432receive the information the psychiatrists disclosed: “Defendant [Du Pont] was entitled under the law generally and specifically under published company policy to verify through their own employed or retained doctors any asserted or claimed medical disability to work. [<j[] [Du Pont], as anyone else, employer or employee, is entitled to employ its own expert, be it doctor or lawyer or whatever, and have a full report of that expert’s findings and their recommendations.” Discussing the plaintiff’s claims against the doctors the court continued: “It is nonsense to argue that defendant’s doctor could not make a full and complete report and recommendation to [Du Pont] in this case concerning plaintiff, and that defendant was only entitled to a simple conclusion of whether plaintiff was or was not in medical need of a 90 day leave of absence. ... No case has been cited nor does the court know of any case so limiting anyone who is entitled, in the first instance, to have their doctors examine someone.”

The trial court’s analysis cannot be reconciled with the language or spirit of the CMIA. The court focused on Du Font’s claimed entitlement to obtain all the information it believed it needed to adequately handle Pettus’s request for disability leave, disregarding the fact that the statute does not always allow health care providers to provide such full disclosure. The Legislature recognized in section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B), that the ability of employers to obtain some medical information without employee authorization may serve a legitimate purpose under some circumstances. At the same time it sought to preserve the employee’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive medical information in the employment context. To balance these interests, the Legislature restricted the information that may be disclosed without authorization to only that which is necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose. Where an employee has submitted to a medical examination to verify a disability that “may entitle the patient to leave from work for medical reasons,” the Legislature determined that the information needed by the employer for verification is a description of the “functional limitations of the patient.” (§ 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B).) Thus, this information may be disclosed to the employer without a written authorization from the patient. In contrast, in the absence of a written authorization from the employee, the Legislature explicitly prohibited disclosure of any “statement of medical cause” of the disability. {Ibid.) This information is not necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose envisioned in subdivision (c)(8)(B) and, therefore, may not be disclosed without patient authorization. The trial court’s conclusion that an employer that is entitled to have its doctors examine an employee is entitled to a “full and complete report” of the *433contents of the examination runs counter to the Legislature’s attempt to balance the competing interests.

The fact that Du Pont may be “entitled to employ its own expert” to examine an employee under certain circumstances22 does not, contrary to the trial court’s holding, entitle it to a “full report of the expert’s findings and recommendations” when determining an employee’s eligibility for disability leave. Because the employer arranged and paid for the medical examination does not abrogate the employee’s right to confidentiality of the information generated by the examination. This interpretation would nullify the Legislature’s attempt to protect employee medical information under section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B), and we decline to adopt it.

The language employed in section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B), specifically restricts permissible disclosure to an employer to a description of the “functional limitations” of the employee who has been examined. The disclosures made by Drs. Cole and Unger to Du Pont describing in detail Pettus’s hostility toward the company and a coworker, his drinking habits and other details about his personal life go well beyond a description of “functional limitations.” The stated purpose of the CMIA, as amended, is “to provide for the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information, while permitting certain reasonable and limited uses of that information.” (Stats. 1981, ch. 782, § 1, p. 3040.) By enacting section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B), the Legislature has determined that the unauthorized disclosure to employers of further detailed medical information about employees is not a reasonable use of that information.

There are, of course, good policy reasons for such a conclusion. If a health care professional were free to give an employer all the details of an employee’s personal life and physical and mental health as revealed during a disability evaluation, there would be a great disincentive to full and honest disclosure by the employee. Indeed, in many cases of psychological disability, there would be a strong disincentive to the employee to seek professional help at all. Neither employees nor employers would be well served by such a rule. Employers would not get an accurate evaluation of their employees’ ability to work (and entitlement to medical leave), employees would not get the benefit of a candid health assessment by the examiner, and employees would in some cases not get the health care they need to be productive *434workers and members of society. Our holding is, thus, firmly rooted in both the plain language of the CMIA and in sound considerations of public policy.

4. Section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A), Is Inapplicable to a Dispute Over an Employee’s Entitlement to Medical Leave.

We turn next to respondents’ argument that the dispute over Pettus’s request for disability leave was a “law suit, arbitration, grievance or other claim or challenge,” i.e., a “proceeding” to which Du Pont and Pettus were “parties,” within the meaning of section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A). The facts of this case do not support a finding to that effect. Pettus requested leave from work because he believed he was suffering a stress-related disability. He was instructed that, under company policy, his disability had to be verified in a medical examination paid for and arranged by Du Pont before leave would be granted. Pettus complied with company procedure without objection, and submitted to three medical examinations as instructed, including the physical examination performed by Dr. Collins and two psychiatric examinations, the first conducted by Dr. Cole, the second by Dr. Unger. When Pettus submitted to medical examinations to have his disability validated, there was no “proceeding” as contemplated by subdivision (c)(8)(A). Nor were Pettus and Du Pont at that point two “parties” presenting opposing versions of a situation over which they disagreed to a neutral decision maker in such a “proceeding.”23

There is a more fundamental reason why section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A) cannot be held to apply to an in-house dispute over an employee’s entitlement to medical leave under an established employer policy providing for same. It is an established tenet of statutory construction that separate items in a statute should be given meaning with reference to the whole, and that each word and phrase in the statute should be interpreted “to give meaning to every word and phrase in the statute to accomplish a result consistent with the legislative purpose.” (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1159.) Even more to the point, “ ‘It is well settled . . . that a general provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former. A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to *435include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.’ ” (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245, 828 P.2d 147], quoting Rose v. State of California (1942) 19 Cal.2d 713, 723-724 [123 P.2d 505].) “To the extent a specific statute is inconsistent with a general statute potentially covering the same subject matter, the specific statute must be read as an exception to the more general statute.” (Salazar v. Eastin (1995) 9 Cal.4th 836, 857 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 890 P.2d 43]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 443 [261 Cal.Rptr. 574, 777 P.2d 610]; Yoffie v. Marin Hospital Dist. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 743, 751 [238 Cal.Rptr. 502]; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Areata Nat. Corp. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 959, 965 [131 Cal.Rptr. 172].)

Section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B) is clearly more specific to the facts of this case than is subdivision (c)(8)(A). The permissive exception under subdivision (c)(8)(B) contemplates the situation where an employee is required to submit to a medical evaluation paid for and arranged by his employer as a prerequisite for approval of a disability leave request. Thus, even if an employer-employee dispute over medical leave involves a “claim,” the more specific provision—subdivision (c)(8)(B)—should be held to govern such disputes. We decline to resolve this case under subdivision (c)(8)(A) because by doing so we would be writing subdivision (c)(8)(B) out of the statute.

Furthermore, even if we were to view the dispute between Pettus and Du Pont as a “law suit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge” within the purview of section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A), it is clear from Du Font’s course of conduct that the information obtained from the respondent psychiatrists was not only “used or disclosed in connection with that proceeding.” (§ 56.10.) The information about Pettus’s drinking habits and his anger toward Judy Mendonca and Du Pont was also “used” as the basis for other personnel actions with respect to Pettus, i.e., to condition his continued employment on attendance at an inpatient alcohol treatment program and, ultimately, to terminate his employment. Such uses of Pettus’s private medical information were well beyond the scope of the dispute over his entitlement to a disability leave under Du Font’s policy. Thus, Drs. Cole and Unger cannot find refuge in subdivision (c)(8)(A).

5. Section 56.10, subdivision (c)(9), Is Inapplicable in the Factual Circumstances of This Case.

Drs. Cole and Unger also contend that subdivision (c)(9) of section 56.10 shields them from liability. We disagree. The fact that Pettus requested *436leave under Du Font’s short-term disability policy does not permit full disclosure to Du Pont as the “sponsor, insurer, or administrator” of the policy under subdivision (c)(9). Drs. Cole and Unger disclosed highly personal medical information directly to Pettus’s second-line supervisor, Bob Rotter. The Du Pont short-term disability plan may indeed fall into the category of a self-insured “plan or policy” within the meaning of subdivision (c)(9). Nevertheless, there is no indication that Rotter was the “sponsor, insurer, or administrator" of the plan, or otherwise an appropriate recipient of the highly personal medical information contained in the psychiatrists’ reports. If we accepted respondents’ argument under subdivision (c)(9), we would in effect be manipulating Du Font’s self-insured status to contravene subdivision (c)(8)(B), the purpose of which is to ensure the confidentiality of employees’ medical information as against their employers unless there is a legitimate need for disclosure. Even if Du Pont can be considered both an employer and a “sponsor, insurer or administrator” of an employee benefit plan, these two roles are separate and are treated differently in the exceptions under section 56.10, subdivision (c). The argument that the full disclosure to Du Pont in its capacity as a “sponsor, insurer or administrator" of a benefit plan may be permissible under subdivision (c)(9) does not address the reality that full disclosure was made to Pettus’s on-site supervisor. This type of disclosure is clearly restricted as delineated in subdivision (c)(8)(B).24

C. Section 47, Subdivisions (b)(2) and (c), Are Inapplicable to Claims for Violation of the CMIA.

Respondent Cole also contends his communications to Du Pont are privileged under section 47, subdivision (b)(2) (hereinafter section 47(b)(2)), and section 47, subdivision (c) (hereinafter section 47(c)). However, these provisions are inapplicable in the circumstances of this case.

Section 47(b)(2) is described in Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205 [266 Cal.Rptr. 638, 786 P.2d 365] as being similar to the common law *437litigation privilege. (Id. at p. 213.) The purpose of this codified litigation privilege is to afford litigants and witnesses the utmost freedom of access to the courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions; to “promote[] the effectiveness of judicial proceedings by encouraging 'open channels of communication and the presentation of evidence’ in judicial proceedings. . . .” (Id. at p. 213, citation omitted.) The policies underlying this statute are clearly intended to promote the accessibility and viability of the judicial system. The process through which Pettus sought to secure disability leave was not a judicial proceeding. Rather, it was established, implemented and overseen solely by Du Pont management. A different set of considerations is at issue in this case.

Respondent Cole correctly points out that the section 47(b)(2) privilege has been applied to “quasi-judicial proceedings" as well as judicial proceedings. However, as we have already discussed, we disagree with his conclusion that the disability evaluation at issue here can be characterized as a quasi-judicial proceeding. Section 47(b)(2) has been extended to quasi-judicial proceedings where those proceedings involve an administrative body or agency’s decisionmaking process. Quasi-judicial immunity has been made available for a mediator in a child custody dispute (Susan A. v. County of Sonoma (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 88 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 27]), and applied to statements published in an arbitration hearing (Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355 [212 Cal.Rptr. 143, 696 P.2d 637, 49 A.L.R.4th 417]). Proceedings undertaken by an official investigative and enforcement branch of the Internal Revenue Service have also been characterized as quasi-judicial. (Tiedemann v. Superior Court (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 918 [148 Cal.Rptr. 242].) One of the primary factors which determines if a proceeding is quasi-judicial is whether the administrative body involved is entitled to hold hearings and decide issues by application of rules of law to ascertain facts. (Ascherman v. Natanson (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 861 [100 Cal.Rptr. 656].) Pettus’s request for leave and the subsequent disability verification procedure involved no such dispute resolution mechanism, no hearings, and the only decision makers involved were a private employer, Du Pont, and its employees and agents. The context in which respondent doctors disclosed medical information to Du Pont was not a “quasi-judicial proceeding,” within the meaning that term has acquired in litigation under section 47(b)(2).

Respondent Cole alternatively argues that his disclosure was privileged under section 47(c). This provision establishes a more general privilege of communication between two interested parties, but respondents’ *438disclosures to Du Pont do not fall under its protection.25 When the communication involves a disclosure of an employee’s medical information by a health care provider to an employer, the more specific privileges established by the CMIA supersede the general privilege afforded under section 47(c). (See San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 577; Rose v. State of California, supra, 19 Cal.2d at pp. 723-724; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Arcata Nat. Corp., supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 965; and cf. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 331] [specific rules governing issues of privilege and privacy prevail over general rules permitting discovery].) The Legislature enacted the CMIA to protect the interest of individuals in maintaining the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information created by health care providers, without regard to whether the provider had reasonable grounds for believing the recipient party’s motives for receiving the information were innocent. Thus, where section 56.10 affords this type of information a greater level of protection from disclosure by health care providers, it must be read to limit the privilege of communication established under section 47(c).

D. Pettus Made a Prima Facie Showing That the Disclosure of Detailed Medical Information by Drs. Cole and Unger Also Violated His Right to Privacy Under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution.

Having concluded that the disclosure of detailed medical information by Drs. Cole and Unger to Pettus’s employer violated his rights under the CMIA, we must decide whether Pettus has established that this conduct also constitutes a violation of his state constitutional right of privacy. Under standards enunciated by our Supreme Court while this matter was pending on appeal, the application of which has been fully briefed and argued by the parties, we conclude that Pettus, upon completion of his case-in-chief, made a prima facie showing of invasion of his constitutional right of privacy. However, based on evidence presented by Du Pont in its defense case, there is a serious question whether Pettus waived any constitutional claim against Drs. Cole and Unger by voluntarily disclosing to his supervisors at Du Pont much of the sensitive personal information that was subsequently transmitted in the psychiatrists’ reports. The trial court did not have that evidenc'p before it when it decided the respondent psychiatrists’ motion for judgment pursuant to section 631.8, and neither the psychiatrists nor Pettus had an *439opportunity to develop and/or respond to that evidence as it bore on Dr. Cole’s and Dr. Unger’s liability for violation of Pettus’s constitutional right of privacy. For this reason, we will remand to the trial court to afford these parties an opportunity to present further evidence relevant to this claim.

1. An Overview of California Constitutional Privacy Law.

Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” (Italics added.) In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633] (hereinafter Hill), our Supreme Court definitively held that the privacy clause of article I, section 1, of the state Constitution “creates a right of action against private as well as government entities.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 20; see also Chico Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Scully (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 230, 242 [256 Cal.Rptr. 194].) The Hill court also defined the elements of a claim for invasion of the state constitutional right of privacy, as follows: “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (7 Cal.4th at pp. 39-40.)

Of course, not every act which has some impact on personal privacy will give rise to a cause of action for violation of the state constitutional right of privacy. Once the plaintiff’s prima facie case has been established, “A defendant may prevail in a state constitutional privacy case by negating any of the three elements just discussed or by pleading and proving, as- an affirmative defense, that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests. The plaintiff, in turn, may rebut a defendant’s assertion of countervailing interests by showing there are feasible and effective alternatives to defendant’s conduct which have a lesser impact on privacy interests." (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 40.)

The Hill court also explained the methodology for evaluating the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s respective interests, as follows: “The diverse and somewhat amorphous character of the privacy right necessarily requires that privacy interests be specifically identified and carefully compared with competing or countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a ‘balancing test.’ The comparison and balancing of diverse interests is central to the privacy jurisprudence of both common and constitutional law. [H Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally authorized and socially beneficial activities *440of government and private entities. Their relative importance is determined by their proximity to the central functions of a particular public or private enterprise.” (7 Cal.4th at pp. 37-38.) In general, where the privacy violation is alleged against a private entity, the defendant is not required to establish a “compelling interest” but, rather, one that is “ ‘legitimate’ or ‘important.’ ” {Id. at p. 57.)26

“The existence of a sufficient countervailing interest or an alternative course of conduct present threshold questions of law for the court. The relative strength of countervailing interests and the feasibility of alternatives present mixed questions of law and fact. Again, in cases where material facts are undisputed, adjudication as a matter of law may be appropriate.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 40.) We will briefly discuss each of the elements of Pettus’s claim against Drs. Cole and Unger for invasion of his constitutional right of privacy, and the matters of defense that were raised in the trial court.

2. Pettus Established a Legally Cognizable Interest in Preserving the Privacy of His Medical History and Psychological Profile.

“Legally recognized privacy interests are generally of two classes: (1) interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’); and (2) interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference (‘autonomy privacy’).” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 35.)

We have no doubt, and determine as a matter of law, that Pettus had a legally cognizable interest in maintaining the privacy of the detailed medical information he conveyed to Drs. Cole and Unger. (13b) “Informational privacy is the core value furthered by the Privacy Initiative” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 35), and it is well settled that the zone of privacy created by that provision extends to the details of a patient’s medical and psychiatric history (Cutter v. Brownbridge (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 836, 842 [228 Cal.Rptr. 545]; Wood v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1147 [212 Cal.Rptr. 811]). As the Cutter court explained, “The right to control circulation of personal information is fundamental. [Citations.] This right reaches beyond the interests protected by the common law right of privacy, and may be protected from infringement by either the state or by any individual. [Citation.] The ‘zones of privacy’ created by article I, section 1, extend to the details of one’s medical history. [Citation.] And, an individual’s right to privacy encompasses not only the state of his mind, but also his *441viscera, detailed complaints of physical ills, and their emotional overtones.” (Cutter v. Brownbridge, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 842; see also Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937, 944 [227 Cal.Rptr. 90, 719 P.2d 660] [“If there is a quintessential zone of human privacy it is the mind. Our ability to exclude others from our mental processes is intrinsic to the human personality.” (Fn. omitted.)]; Kees v. Medical Board (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1801, 1813 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 112] [same]; Davis v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 1019 [a person’s medical profile is an area of privacy which cannot be compromised except upon good cause; right of privacy extends to the details of one’s personal life].)

A review of Dr. Cole’s and Dr. Unger’s written reports clearly demonstrates the private nature of the information transmitted to Du Pont. These reports were quite thorough and detailed in their discussion of: the rash that covered Pettus’s body, the medication he was using to treat it, and his fears about that medication causing cancer; his sleep patterns and sex drive; his hostile feelings toward certain current and former coworkers and supervisors; past suicidal feelings; his smoking and drinking patterns; a social history of his life from the time of his birth, with his family of origin, through a marriage and divorce, to the present; and his anxious and highly emotional behavior during the interview (crying, wringing his hands, burying his face in his hands, jumping out of his chair and removing his shirt to reveal the marks on his skin from the rash medicine). Certainly, this is the type of “sensitive personal information” the California voters had in mind when they adopted the constitutional privacy guarantee, expressly limiting the freedom of both government and business entities to obtain, disseminate and use such data. (See Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 16-17.)

3. The Evidence Presented in Pettus’s Case-in-chief Established That He Had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Detailed Medical Information Conveyed to Drs. Cole and Unger.

“ ‘The extent of [a privacy] interest is not independent of the circumstances.’ ” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 36, quoting Plante v. Gonzalez (5th Cir. 1978) 575 F.2d 1119,1135.) “A ‘reasonable’ expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms.” (Hill, supra, at p. 37.) Various factors such as advance notice, customs, practices, justification, physical settings and the presence of an opportunity to consent may inhibit or diminish reasonable expectations of privacy. (Id. at pp. 36-39.) “For example, advance notice of an impending action may serve to ‘ “limit . . . intrusion upon the personal dignity and security” ’ that would otherwise be regarded as serious.” (Id. at p. 36 [referring to a sobriety checkpoint].)

Taking into account the circumstances of this case—at least insofar as those circumstances were established at trial by the time Drs. Cole and *442Unger made their successful motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8—Pettus’s expectations of privacy in the information imparted to Drs. Cole and Unger were not unreasonable. Unlike the intercollegiate athletes in Hill, who routinely disrobe in the presence of other people and whose privacy is routinely intruded upon by regular physical examinations and special scrutiny of their fitness, diet, sleep activities and other habits (7 Cal.4th at pp. 55-53), it is reasonable for employees to expect that details of their personal lives and thoughts will be shielded from scrutiny by their employers.27 (See id. at p. 54 [“Employment settings are diverse, complex, and very different from intercollegiate athletic competition.”].) It is true, as a general matter, that Pettus put his mental condition in issue by requesting paid leave under Du Font’s disability policy. It is also true that Du Pont had a right to know whether Pettus was in fact disabled by stress and, perhaps, whether or not his disability was work related,28 before it was bound to provide Pettus with paid disability leave. But the detailed psychiatric information Du Pont requested and obtained from Drs. Cole and Unger, and ultimately used to make adverse personnel decisions about Pettus, was far more than the employer needed to accomplish its legitimate objectives.29 It also exceeded the scope of disclosure to which Pettus may be deemed to have consented either expressly or impliedly when he requested disability leave, submitted to psychiatric evaluation, and orally acknowledged that Dr. Cole would be reporting back to Du Pont.

There is no reason in law or policy why an employer should be allowed access to detailed family or medical histories of its employees, or to the *443intricacies of its employees’ mental processes, except with an individual employee’s freely given consent to the particular disclosure or some other substantial justification.30 Indeed, the Legislature recognized as much when it enacted section 56.10, allowing health care providers to disclose only narrow categories of medical information about employees, and then only for certain narrow purposes. In the context of this case, where the information was generated in connection with a request for leave for medical reasons, subdivision (c)(8)(B) of section 56.10, is itself confirmation of the reasonableness of Pettus’s expectation that Drs. Cole and Unger would maintain the confidentiality of his discussions with them, except insofar as Du Pont needed their opinions as to whether he was disabled, i.e. whether he had “functional limitations” that entitled him to “leave from work for medical reasons,” or limited his “fitness to perform his . . . present employment . . . .” It is difficult to imagine a clearer expression of “broadly based and widely accepted community norms.” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 37; and cf. Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 831-832 [134 Cal.Rptr. 839] [relying on state and federal statutes governing confidentiality of student records as basis of claim for invasion of state constitutional right of informational privacy].) Thus, except for the disclosures that are expressly authorized by the CMIA, we conclude that Pettus’s expectation that the psychiatrists would maintain the confidentiality of the contents of their discussions was reasonable in the circumstances.

4. Evidence Presented During the Plaintiffs Case-in-chief Established That the Disclosures by Drs. Cole and Unger Seriously Interfered With Pettus’s Informational Privacy Rights.

The final element of Pettus’s prima facie case of invasion of privacy is the seriousness of the intrusion: “Actionable invasions of privacy must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right. Thus, the extent and gravity of the invasion is an indispensable consideration in assessing an alleged invasion of privacy.” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 37.) The impact on the claimant’s privacy rights must be more than “slight or trivial.” (Ibid.) In this case, based on the evidence presented in his case-in-chief, Pettus established that the revelation of at *444least some of the information contained in the psychiatrists’ reports—e.g., information about his past and present drinking habits, and his strongly held views about racism among his coworkers and Du Pont management—was highly embarrassing to him. Indeed, Pettus testified that he was humiliated when he learned that the psychiatrists had communicated to Du Pont their belief that he was abusing alcohol, and that alcohol abuse was the root cause of his psychological problems. Up to that point, Pettus had maintained a self-concept and a public persona as a dedicated, hard-working, reliable Du Pont employee who performed his job duties in a satisfactory manner and never came to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is no exaggeration to say that that image was shattered when Drs. Cole and Unger transmitted their reports to Pettus’s managers at Du Pont.

The Hill court explained the importance to an individual of being able to control his or her public image, and described the psychological damage that can result from unexpected disclosure of highly personal information: “Privacy rights also have psychological foundations emanating from personal needs to establish and maintain identity and self-esteem by controlling self-disclosure: ‘In a society in which multiple, often conflicting role performances are demanded of each individual, the original etymological meaning of the word “person”—mask—has taken on new meaning. [People] fear exposure not only to those closest to them; much of the outrage underlying the asserted right to privacy is a reaction to exposure to persons known only through business or other secondary relationships. The claim is not so much one of total secrecy as it is of the right to define one’s circle of intimacy—to choose who shall see beneath the quotidian mask. Loss of control over which ‘face’ one puts on may result in literal loss of self-identity [citations], and is humiliating beneath the gaze of those whose curiosity treats a human being as an object.’ ” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 25, first italics added for emphasis, quoting Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 529, 534 [93 Cal.Rptr. 866, 483 P.2d 34, 57 A.L.R.3d 1], fn. omitted.)

Anyone who has ever been an “employee” can relate to the Hill and Briscoe courts’ discussion of the importance of protecting an individual’s right to informational privacy, especially as against employers and others with whom the individual maintains only a business relationship. The “employee” mask is one that helps workers maintain an aura of competence, efficiency, professionalism, social propriety, seriousness of purpose, etc., allowing them to perform their duties to the satisfaction of their employers but simultaneously to protect their job security and, thus, their economic well-being. Many employees choose to conceal from their employers matters of disability, sexual orientation and conduct, political affiliation or activities, family or marital strife, unconventional life styles or avocations, etc., out of *445fear that, no matter how well they might perform in the workplace, revelations about these or other aspects of their private lives may cost them their jobs. In general, this approach is one that benefits both employees and employers, who often stress that employees should not bring their personal problems to work with them or pursue personal interests while they are “on the clock,” and who would not always wish to be identified as somehow connected with their employees’ private conduct. In return, it is only fair that employees be allowed to maintain a wall of privacy around highly personal information about their other “roles” in life, to be free to tell their employers, in effect, “It’s none of your business what I do—and think—on my own time.”

Drs. Cole and Unger knew that they were sharing detailed personal and medical information about Pettus with his employer. They did not necessarily know the use(s) to which Du Pont might put the information. But they can fairly be charged with knowing that the information they were disclosing was of a type that could prove to be highly embarrassing to Pettus, and/or disruptive of his relationship with his employer. According to Pettus, the disclosures caused great damage both to his self-concept and to his professional image in the eyes of his employer. In these circumstances, we conclude Pettus adequately established that the intrusion into his right of informational privacy was sufficiently serious as to establish the third element for a violation of article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.

5. No Adequate Justification Has Been Established for the Invasion of Pettus’s Privacy Interests and He Has Shown That Equally Effective, but Less Intrusive, Alternatives Were Available to Serve Du Pont’s and the Psychiatrists’ Competing Interests.

We turn next to an examination of the countervailing interests asserted by Drs. Cole and Unger to justify the invasion of Pettus’s privacy, and determine whether Pettus has shown that there were equally effective, less intrusive means to serve those interests. (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 40.) Essentially, Drs. Cole and Unger explain that they gave Du Pont a full, detailed psychiatric report because that is what employers expect to receive when they retain a psychiatrist to evaluate an employee for disability leave.31 Respondents further assert that Du Pont “needed” the detailed report in order to evaluate Pettus’s request for disability leave, and to formulate a plan for *446getting him back to work as soon as possible. When balanced against the Pettus’s privacy interests, and viewed in light of available alternatives, neither of these justifications carries the day.

If employers expected to receive detailed medical information in order to process medical leave requests before the enactment of the CMIA in 1981, those expectations should have been altered when subdivision (c)(8)(B) was added to section 56.10 by the 1981 amendments. Physicians who previously honored those pre-CMIA expectations should also have adjusted their understanding of the balance between employers’ business interests and employees’ privacy rights in that context.

As to the employers’ asserted “need” for detailed medical information about their employees, we recognize that employers have important and legitimate interests in maintaining an efficient and productive work force. Employers also have substantial latitude in regulating their employees’ on-the-job conduct and working relationships. They are, thus, entitled to notice when an employee cannot perform some or all of the essential job functions assigned to that employee and, if the employee hopes to avail himself of paid leave benefits, to such information as is necessary to make an evenhanded decision about the employee’s eligibility for such leave. But again, a medical opinion by an employer-aligned physician as to the existence of “functional limitations,” and as to the “industrial versus nonindustrial” nature of the injury, is what the employer “needs” to know to make that eligibility determination. However, contrary to the respondents’ argument, employers do not have a cognizable interest in dictating a course of medical treatment for employees who suffer nonindustrial injuries.32 That is a matter for the employees to decide, in consultation with their own health care providers—medical professionals who have their patients’ best interests at heart.33

Dr. Unger further contends that Du Pont had a legitimate interest in assessing Pettus’s potential for violence, especially toward Judy Mendonca. While quite plausible on its face, this argument is too simplistic and sweeping in its implications. It is, of course, true that employers have a legitimate—indeed compelling—interest in maintaining a safe working environment for their employees. It is another matter altogether to say that an employer can require an employee to submit to examination by an employer-aligned psychiatrist whenever it learns that an employee is angry and *447resentful toward a coworker, and is thereafter entitled to the type of detailed report, including a full psychiatric history and evaluation, that Drs. Unger and Cole provided to Du Pont. Both of these psychiatrists, along with appellant’s own therapist, Dr. Shervington, already had a common law duty to warn Mendonca, and possibly Du Pont, if at any time they determined that Pettus presented “a serious danger of violence” to her or any other reasonably identifiable Du Pont employee. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 431 [131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 83 A.L.R.3d 1166] (Tarasoff); § 43.92; see also Evid. Code, § 1024; Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 452 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 834 P.2d 786].) Nothing we say today is intended to limit that duty in any way, but neither do we intend to expand it. If Pettus had indeed posed a danger of serious violence to Mendonca or any other identifiable Du Pont employee, Drs. Cole, Unger, and Shervington were at all times free to disclose that fact to the possible victim—but only that fact. (Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also Cutter v. Brownbridge, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 843 [“[E]ven when the balance tips in favor of disclosure, constitutional concerns require a strict circumscription of the scope of the disclosure.”].)34 In other words, Du Font’s (and Mendonca’s) interest in a safe workplace would have been as well served if the psychiatrists had simply honored their duties under existing law. There is, however, no indication that any of them found it necessary or appropriate to give a Tarasoff warning to Mendonca, and neither Dr. Cole nor Dr. Unger has asserted that their reports to Du Pont were made in fulfillment of their duties under that case or section 43.92. Of course, Dr. Unger would have been hard pressed to take such a position since she testified that she did not believe Pettus was dangerous.

In sum, based on the evidence presented in Pettus’s case-in-chief, we hold that the disclosures by Drs. Cole and Unger of detailed medical and psychiatric information about Pettus to his direct supervisors were a serious violation of Pettus’s reasonable expectations that the psychiatrists would maintain the confidentiality of such highly sensitive information. We further conclude that the justifications offered by respondents do not outweigh Pettus’s informational privacy interests, and that there were less intrusive alternatives to full disclosure that would have equally well served the *448psychiatrists’ and Du Font’s interests. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred when it granted the motion of Drs. Cole and Unger for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, thereby rejecting Pettus’s claim against Drs. Cole and Unger for invasion of his informational privacy rights under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.

6. On Remand, Drs. Cole and Unger Must Be Afforded an Opportunity to Present Evidence in Defense of Pettus’s Constitutional Privacy Claim.

Given the peculiar procedural posture of this case—i.e., related, consolidated appeals from judgments entered based on two separate bodies of evidence presented in a single bench trial—the foregoing conclusions do not end our inquiry. We have before us a record of evidence presented after the trial court granted the psychiatrists’ motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, that may bear on or, indeed, defeat entirely Pettus’s constitutional privacy claim against Drs. Cole and Unger. This evidence indicates that in conversations with his Du Pont supervisors in early and mid-June 1988, before he met with either of the respondent psychiatrists, Pettus voluntarily disclosed at least some of the sensitive personal and medical information subsequently transmitted by Drs. Cole and Unger to those same supervisors.

Specifically, on June 6,1988, Pettus told Bob Rotter that the stress he was suffering stemmed from the Flint incident, that he was angry at Du Pont management, that the mere sight of Du Pont products could trigger his anger, and that he was angry at Judy Mendonca such that he wanted to hit her. On June 16, 1988, Pettus described in more detail his feelings about the way he was treated at Du Font’s Flint, Michigan plant. He even admitted that, at the time, he “[s]tarted to become an alcoholic.” Pettus also elaborated on his hostility towards Judy Mendonca and towards his supervisors because of their handling of that incident. In addition, although it does not appear he ever directly confronted his Hayward supervisors with his belief that they and/or Mendonca were racists, he had already filed a lawsuit alleging that his troubles at the Flint plant were due to the racism of Du Pont and some of its employees at that facility.

While it is far from overwhelming, this evidence may be sufficient to find that, by his own conduct, Pettus waived any constitutional privacy claim he might otherwise have had against Drs. Cole and Unger. (See Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 340 [107 Cal.Rptr. 309, 508 P.2d 309]; Jones v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534, 548-551 [174 Cal.Rptr. 148].) If Pettus himself disclosed the damaging information he claims the *449psychiatrists revealed to his supervisors at Du Pont, he will be hard pressed to claim any legally protected “privacy” interest with respect to that information. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 39-40.) He will also have a difficult time proving as an ultimate fact the reasonableness of his expectation that Drs. Cole and Unger would maintain the confidentiality of information his supervisors already knew. (Ibid.) Finally, even if the psychiatrists’ reports contained a broader range of embarrassing information or more detail about sensitive matters than Pettus had already discussed with Rotter and Taylor (or otherwise conveyed to Du Pont), Pettus’s argument that Drs. Cole and Unger “seriously” interfered with his informational privacy rights will be greatly undermined if his supervisors already knew the essential facts about those matters.

Of course, the evidence of a possible waiver is not without dispute. For instance, it clearly appears that the allegedly “private” information Du Pont used against Pettus consisted of statements he made to Drs. Cole and Unger about his drinking habits in Flint and in the months following the “Judy incident,” and the psychiatrists’ opinions about his use of alcohol. There is, however, no indication that anything Pettus told his supervisors before his visit with Dr. Cole was sufficient to raise a concern about a drinking problem until Dr. Cole and Dr. Unger reported the results of their respective evaluations. Further, Rotter claims to have been alarmed by Pettus’s hostility and potential for violence towards Judy Mendonca and himself, about which he learned no later than June 6, 1988. But it was not until after Drs. Cole and Unger issued their reports that Rotter hired a security guard and began to take steps to “help” Pettus solve his anger problem. Finally, Pettus claims he was particularly embarrassed when Dr. Cole reported statements he had made about racism among his supervisors and coworkers at Du Font’s Hayward plant. As we have noted, Pettus appears to have kept those thoughts secret, and believed the psychiatrists would do likewise.

Given the sharp conflict in the evidence that arose after the trial court granted the psychiatrists’ motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, and the fact that Drs. Cole and Unger never had an opportunity to present a defense, we conclude a remand to the trial court is the most appropriate course of action to resolve Pettus’s constitutional privacy claims against the psychiatrists. (See Stonewall Ins. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1824-1825, 1838 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 176]; Katsaris v. Cook (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 256, 269 [225 Cal.Rptr. 531].) This disposition will also give the trial court, which did not have the benefit of our Supreme Court’s decision in Hill when called upon to render a judgment in this difficult case, an opportunity to take and weigh all *450relevant evidence within the framework established by that case.35 Accordingly, we will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.36

III. The Appeal From Judgment in Favor of Du Pont

A. Standard of Review.

As before, in reviewing questions of fact decided by the trial court the substantial evidence rule applies. (Rodriguez v. North American Rockwell Corp., supra, 28 Cal.App.3d at p. 447 [appellate court must view the evidence most favorably to the respondents and uphold the judgment if there is any substantial evidence to support it].) However, to the extent we are called on to review conclusions of law based on undisputed facts, we are not bound by the trial court’s decision and are free to draw our own conclusions of law. (Torrey Pines Bank v. Hoffman, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 317.)

It is undisputed that Pettus never came to work under the influence of alcohol, never imbibed alcohol before or during work, and never exhibited any behavior that indicated to Du Pont managers that he had a drinking problem. In 22 years of employment with Du Pont, no one had ever told appellant he might have an alcohol abuse problem. Du Font’s conclusion that appellant needed alcohol rehabilitation was based solely on information derived from the reports of the psychiatrists it retained to evaluate Pettus’s request for disability leave, i.e., Drs. Cole and Unger.

It is also undisputed that Pettus never threatened or physically harmed anyone at Du Pont in his 22 years of service with the company, and that Dr. Unger—the psychiatrist who was specifically asked to evaluate Pettus for this purpose—did not believe he posed a danger to anyone inside or outside *451the workplace. Indeed, Mr. Taylor admitted that, at the time of termination, he had never seen Pettus act violently toward anyone and that he, too, did not consider Pettus to be dangerous. It is, thus, essentially undisputed that Du Font’s sole reason for discharging Pettus was that he refused to enroll in an inpatient alcohol treatment program as directed by his employer as a condition of continued employment.37 We will discuss each of Pettus’s claims against respondent Du Pont in light of the foregoing undisputed facts.

B. Du Pont’s Use of Confidential Medical Information in Its Possession as Grounds for Terminating Pettus’s Employment Was a Violation of Section 56.20.

We begin with an examination of Pettus’s claim that Du Pont violated the CMIA—more specifically, the provisions relating to use and disclosure of medical information by employers (§ 56.20 et seq.)—by misusing information it obtained from Drs. Cole and Unger to terminate his employment. In relevant part, section 56.20, subdivision (c) provides; “No employer shall use, disclose, or knowingly permit its employees or agents to use or disclose medical information which the employer possesses pertaining to its employees without the patient having first signed an authorization under Section 56.11 ... , except as follows; ...[*][] (2) That part of the information which is relevant in a lawsuit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge to which the employer and employee are parties and in which the patient has placed in issue his or her medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment may be used or disclosed in connection with that proceeding. (3) The information may be used only for the purpose of administering and maintaining employee benefit plans, including health care plans and plans providing short-term and long-term disability income, workers’ compensation^] and for determining eligibility for paid and unpaid leave from work for medical reasons.” (Italics added.)

As before, it is undisputed that none of the health care providers involved in this case obtained a written authorization from Pettus for disclosure of their detailed psychiatric evaluations to Du Pont. Thus, Du Pont may be held liable for a violation of section 56.20, subdivision (c), if it used the medical information contained in those reports to Pettus’s detriment, unless that “use” falls within one of the two above quoted exceptions to section 56.20.

*452Our disposition of the psychiatrists’ argument about section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(A), precludes any argument that Du Pont is shielded by the exception for “use” of “information which is relevant in a lawsuit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge.” (§ 56.20, subd. (c)(2).) As we have already discussed, Du Pont did not use the medical information it obtained from Drs. Cole and Unger “in connection with” a “proceeding” to which it and Pettus were “parties.” (Ibid.) Similarly, Du Font’s “use” of the detailed medical information it obtained from Drs. Cole and Unger was more far-ranging than permitted by section 56.20, subdivision (c)(3). Du Pont did not simply use that information “for the purpose of administering and maintaining [its] employee benefit plans,” or “for determining [Pettus’s] eligibility for paid and unpaid leave from work for medical reasons.” (Ibid.) Rather, Du Pont used the information about Pettus’s “adverse” alcohol consumption and his anger toward Judy Mendonca as the basis for its decision to force him into an inpatient alcohol treatment program and, ultimately, as a basis for terminating his employment. It is from such “uses” of confidential medical information that the CMIA was intended to protect employees. Thus, to the extent Pettus suffered “economic loss or personal injury” from Du Font’s “use” of his confidential medical information, Du Pont may be held to answer in damages for violation of the CMIA. (§ 56.35.)

C. Discharging Pettus for His Refusal to Participate in an Employer-mandated Course of Medical Treatment Was a Violation of His State Constitutional Right to Privacy.

The trial court concluded that Du Pont was justified in discharging Pettus because he refused to enroll in an inpatient alcohol treatment program as directed by his employer as a condition of continued employment, and that Du Pont was not liable for either invasion of privacy or wrongful termination in violation of the public policy embodied in the privacy clause. It is these tort claims—one arising from the California Constitution, the other from common law—that are at the heart of Pettus’s appeal from the judgment in favor of Du Pont.38

1. An Overview of California Wrongful Termination and Workplace Privacy Law.

There has been a great deal of confusion about the role of the California constitutional right to privacy in the private workplace, especially *453when employees have resorted to the courts to claim that they have suffered some adverse personnel action for asserting or refusing to waive their constitutional privacy rights. The claims that have arisen in this context have typically involved employer-mandated drug testing. (Semore v. Pool (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1087 [266 Cal.Rptr. 280] (Semore); Luckv. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d 1 (Luck)’, Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034 [264 Cal.Rptr. 194] (Wilkinson).) Where the adverse personnel action is termination of employment, the parties and courts have treated the issue as one of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Semore, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1097-1098; Luck, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 28-29; cf. Wilkinson, supra, 215 CaI.App.3d at p. 1039 [analyzing challenge to preemployment drug testing program under theories of invasion of privacy (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1) and unfair business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)].)

Of course, a tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is now well established in California. (Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1174, 1186 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 8, 864 P.2d 88]; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1091-1095 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680]; Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 89-91 [276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373]; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 661-671 [254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373]; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170-178 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330, 9 A.L.R.4th 314]; Greene v. Hawaiian Dredging Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 245, 251 [157 P.2d 367]; Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 188-189 [344 P.2d 25].) The rule of these cases is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine embodied in Labor Code section 2622. (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1089.) “[A]n action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy must be predicated on a fundamental, well-established, substantial policy that concerns society at large rather than the individual interests of the employer or employee [citation], and that is delineated in some constitutional or statutory provision. [Citation.]” (Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1186.) As our Supreme Court explained in Gantt, supra-. “A public policy exception carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions strikes the proper balance among the interests of employers, employees and the public. The employer is bound, at a minimum, to know the fundamental public policies of the state and nation as expressed in their constitutions and statutes; so limited, the public policy exception presents no impediment to employers that operate within the bounds of law. Employees are protected against employer actions that contravene fundamental state policy. And society’s interests are served through a more stable job market, in which its most important policies are safeguarded.” (1 Cal.4th at p. 1095.)

*454The cases in which California courts have recognized a separate tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy generally fall into four categories, where the employee is discharged for: (1) refusal to violate a statute (see, e.g., Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 [employee discharged for refusal to participate in an illegal scheme to fix gasoline prices]; Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 184 [employee discharged for refusal to comply with employer’s instruction to lie to state legislative committee]); (2) performing a statutory obligation (see Kouffv. Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 322, 324-325 [202 P.2d 1059] [employee discharged for taking time off from work to serve as an election officer]); (3) exercising (or refusing to waive) a statutory or constitutional right or privilege (Semore, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1096-1098 [employee discharged for refusal, based on state constitutional right of privacy, to submit to test for illegal drug use];39 Wetherton v. Growers Farm Labor Assn. (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 168 [79 Cal.Rptr. 543], disapproved in part on other grounds in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 521, fn. 10 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 869 P.2d 454] [employee discharged for engaging in union activities]); or (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance (Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290 [188 Cal.Rptr. 159, 35 A.L.R.4th 1015] [employee discharged because of his efforts to obtain a smoke-free environment; discharge was contrary to Labor Code provisions that require employers to maintain a safe and healthful workplace and protect employees’ rights to criticize their working conditions]).40

Of the existing wrongful termination cases, Semore and Luck, both supra, are most closely on point for purposes of evaluating Pettus’s claim that he was discharged in violation of public policy. Like Pettus, the plaintiffs in *455 Semore and Luck claimed that they were discharged because they refused to waive or insisted that their employers honor their state constitutional right of privacy. (Semore, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1096-1098; Luck, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 28-29.) Semore and Luck arrive at opposite conclusions on the issue whether an employee can state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy against a private employer based on allegations that the employer somehow invaded the employee’s state constitutional right of privacy. Both decisions were also accompanied by vigorous dissents.

In Semore, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d 1087, the court reversed a trial court ruling sustaining a demurrer to a complaint for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on allegations that the employee plaintiff was fired for refusing to submit to a pupillary reaction eye test designed to determine whether he was under the influence of drugs. Holding that the employee’s state constitutional right of privacy was a sufficient public policy to serve as the basis of a wrongful discharge suit, the Semore court observed: “[T]he resolution of the dispute depends upon balancing an employee’s expectations of privacy against the employer’s needs to regulate the conduct of its employees at work.” (Id. at p. 1097.) However, because there was insufficient information in the complaint about the employee’s duties, the precise nature and reliability of the test, the handling of test results, and the employer’s interests, the court declined to strike the required balance on the pleadings before it. (Id. at pp. 1099-1100.)

In dissent, Justice McDaniel relied on Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d 654, to argue that the employee plaintiff was challenging the employer’s drug testing policy to vindicate his personal interests, not those of the public and, thus, not could not state a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Semore, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1107-1110.) Indeed, the dissenting justice observed, “[I]t could reasonably be argued that employees who refuse to participate in drug testing do so in derogation of the public interest, and employees who consent to such testing do so in protection of the public weal.” (Id. at p. 1109, fn. 2.) Justice McDaniel further reasoned that the plaintiff’s privacy interest was one that could be “ ‘circumvented by agreement of the parties’ ” without violating public policy. (Id. at p. 1107.) More specifically, Justice McDaniel believed that the employee and employer could lawfully agree, as a condition of continued employment, that the employee “would not assert his right to privacy (presumably, in connection with the eye test).” (Id. at p. 1109.)

In Luck, supra, Division Four of this court affirmed a judgment entered upon a jury verdict—including an award of $180,092 in economic damages *456for lost compensation and benefits, plus $304,950 in tort damages, apparently under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress—in favor of a nonsafety employee of a railroad (a computer installer and technician) who was discharged because she refused to submit to a urinalysis drug test. (218 Cal.App.3d at pp. 8, 31.) However, in dicta that tracked Justice McDaniel’s reasoning in his dissent in Semore, the court observed that Ms. Luck could not state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, saying, “The right to privacy is, by its very name, a private right, not a public one. The parties could have lawfully agreed that Luck would submit to urinalysis without violating any public interest. Such an agreement between Luck and Southern Pacific would not have been against public policy. [Citation.] Therefore, under Foley [v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d 654], there was no violation of public policy.” (Luck, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 28, italics omitted.) The court further explained that there was no “consensus about whether urinalysis testing is consistent with state and federal privacy protections,” and that there was no “firmly established [public] policy prohibiting urinalysis” at the time of termination. (Id. at pp. 28-29.)

In a strongly-worded concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Poché said that he would have affirmed the jury’s verdict on the ground that Ms. Luck had proved a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. He rejected the majority’s contention that the plaintiff had vindicated purely “private" interests, saying: “In the instant case Barbara Luck thought she located the public policy right at the start of this state’s basic document which reads: ‘Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution. Article I. Declaration of rights. § 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.’ [*][] Unlike the majority I find the public policy basis for Barbara Luck’s cause of action right where she finds it, and I find it to be firmly established, fundamental and substantial. What could be more firmly established than the very first section of the first article of the state Constitution? What could be more fundamental than that document’s enumeration of inalienable rights? What could be more substantial than ‘enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy’? Having met the requirements of Tameny and Foley, she has stated and proved her cause of action.” (Luck, supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 32 (dis. opn. of Poché, J.).) Justice Poché further reasoned that, “Unless we accept the perfectly logical and defensible position that inalienable personal rights *457inure by their very nature to the benefit of all Californians and thus to the public benefit, we accord no practical protection to the very rights given the greatest deference by our Constitution.” (Id. at p. 34.)

Much of the analytical difficulty encountered by the Semore and Luck courts results from their attempt to shoehorn the privacy claims at issue in those cases into the Foley model of a tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. What is really at stake in those cases, as well as in the instant case, is a violation of a fundamental state constitutional right that is directly and independently enforceable against both private and governmental entities (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 20), where the threat of discharge is simply the means by which the employer applies economic coercion to the employee’s decision whether to exercise (or waive) those rights, and/or where termination of employment is a form of punishment or retaliation for the employee’s choice to exercise (or refusal to waive) those rights. Although Hill did not arise in the employment context, it is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision in that case that a discharged employee’s claim against his or her employer for invasion of the state constitutional right to privacy is subject to the elements and standards announced therein. Thus, in analyzing such a claim, courts must undertake a “careful consideration of reasonable expectations of privacy and employer, employee, and public interests arising in particular circumstances.” (Id. at pp. 55-56, fn. 20.)

2. Legally Protected Privacy Interests.

In this case, Pettus contends that Du Pont violated both his informational and autonomy privacy rights when it requested and then misused private information obtained from Drs. Cole and Unger to force him, under pain of termination, to enroll in an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, and thereafter terminated his employment because he refused to waive those rights. We begin our analysis under Hill by identifying the precise privacy interests with which Pettus claims Du Pont interfered.

As we have already discussed, Pettus had a cognizable interest in maintaining the privacy of the detailed medical information he conveyed to Drs. Cole and Unger—at least those portions of the information above and beyond what was necessary to evaluate whether he was disabled within the meaning of Du Font’s short-term disability policy. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 35; Cutter v. Brownbridge, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 842; Wood v. Superior Court, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1147; Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 944; Kees v. Medical Board, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 1813; Davis v. Superior Court, supra, 1 *458Cal.App.4th at p. 1019.) Alternatively, Pettus argues that regardless of whether it was proper for Du Pont to request and receive detailed psychiatric reports from Drs. Cole and Unger in order to evaluate his disability leave request, he had a further interest in not having his confidential medical information misused by his direct supervisors as the basis for discipline, termination, or other adverse personnel actions. Such a misuse of information that was properly obtained for another purpose can also form the basis of a claim for violation of the state constitutional right to privacy. (See Porten v. University of San Francisco, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at p. 832.)41

Even more importantly, however, Pettus had an “autonomy privacy” interest in making intimate personal decisions about an appropriate course of medical treatment for his disabling stress condition, without undue intrusion or interference from his employer. (See Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 28-31, 35-36; Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303, 1317-1318 [271 Cal.Rptr. 199] [right of competent adult to refuse medical treatment is grounded in both the common law and the state constitutional right of privacy]; cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261, 270 [111 L.Ed.2d 224, 236-237, 110 S.Ct. 2841] [right to refuse medical treatment analyzed as 14th Amendment liberty interest]; see also Conservatorship of Drabick (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 185, 208 [245 Cal.Rptr. 840]; Keyhea v. Rushen (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 526, 540 [223 Cal.Rptr. 746]; Bartling v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 186, 195 [209 Cal.Rptr. 220]; Bouvia v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1137 [225 Cal.Rptr. 297].) This “autonomy privacy” interest is at the heart of Pettus’s privacy claim against Du Pont, and is plainly sufficient to satisfy the first element of his cause of action for violation of his constitutional right of privacy.

3. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.

We turn next to the question whether Pettus’s expectations that Du Pont would honor the identified informational and autonomy privacy interests were reasonable in the circumstances of this case. As we have already discussed, it is reasonable for an employee to expect that details of his personal life and thoughts, communicated in confidence to a psychiatrist, will be shielded against scrutiny by his employer. Given section 56.10, subdivision (c)(8)(B), this is true notwithstanding the fact that the employee has placed his mental condition in issue by requesting paid leave for medical *459reasons, has submitted to psychiatric examination, and knows that the psychiatrist will report back to the employer. (See Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 36-37; Porten v. University of San Francisco, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at pp. 831-832 [relying on state and federal statutes governing confidentiality of student records as basis of claim for invasion of state constitutional right of informational privacy].) It is equally reasonable, pursuant to the provisions of section 56.20, for an employee to expect that extraneous information about his personal life and thoughts, communicated in confidence to a psychiatrist in an employment-related examination, will not be used by his employer as the basis for adverse personnel action.

As to Pettus’s autonomy privacy interests, we are aware of no law or policy which suggests that a person forfeits his or her right of medical self-determination by entering into an employment relationship, or by requesting paid leave under a benefit plan that is voluntarily provided by the employer, or by submitting to a psychiatric examination by an employer-aligned physician. It is reasonable for the employee to believe that, notwithstanding the fact the employer is paying for the examination and will pay benefits upon adequate proof of disability, he or she will remain free to control both the information flow and the medical decisionmaking about a disabling medical condition. Indeed, it would be unprecedented for this court to hold that an employer may dictate to an employee the course of medical treatment he or she must follow, under pain of termination, with respect to a nonoccupational illness or injury. It is, thus, eminently reasonable for employees to expect that their employers will respect—i.e., not attempt to coerce or otherwise interfere with—their decisions about their own health care, including those which relate to drug or alcohol treatment.

Our conclusion on this point is bolstered by Labor Code section 1025 et seq. Section 1025 provides: “Every private employer regularly employing 25 or more employees shall reasonably accommodate any employee who wishes to voluntarily enter and participate in an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program, provided that this reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. [H Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit an employer from refusing to hire, or discharging an employee who, because of the employee’s current use of alcohol or drugs, is unable to perform his or her duties, or cannot perform the duties in a manner which would not endanger his or her health or safety or the health or safety of others.” (Italics added.) The “reasonable accommodation” contemplated by section 1025 is time off from work for the affected employee as necessary to participate in a drug or alcohol treatment program, at least to the extent the employer can provide such leave without undue disruption of its business. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1103, § 1, p. 3729.) Section 1026 further provides *460that: “The employer shall make reasonable efforts to safeguard the privacy of the employee as to the fact that he or she has enrolled in an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program.”

These Labor Code provisions may reasonably be construed as declarations of legislative policy that an employee’s decision to participate in alcohol or drug rehabilitation implicates serious privacy concerns of both the informational and autonomy varieties. That is, the fact of participation in an alcohol or drug treatment program is deemed “private” information which must be treated with sensitivity by employers, and the decision to enter such a program is one entrusted to the employee, to be made “voluntarily,” without employer coercion or interference. Indeed, far from being permitted to interfere, the employer has affirmative duties to facilitate the employee’s decision to enter alcohol or drug treatment once the employee chooses that course of action. (Lab. Code, § 1025.) Thus, taken as a whole, section 1025 et seq. of the Labor Code may be viewed as a legislatively imposed limit on covered employers’ prerogatives with respect to alcohol rehabilitation for their employees, and as a clear statement of the “social norms” applicable in the employment setting with respect to employer involvement—or, rather, noninvolvement—in the very private matter of employee drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Any other interpretation would violate the settled rules of statutory interpretation that a court “must. . . accord[] significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose,” and that “[a] construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323].)42

4. Seriousness of the Intrusion.

The third element of Pettus’s prima facie case of invasion of privacy is the seriousness of the intrusion or interference by Du Pont with his identified privacy interests. We have already discussed at length how the disclosure of Pettus’s private medical information by Drs. Cole and Unger may have seriously undermined his self-concept and image as a “responsible employee,” and disrupted his employment relationship with Du Pont. (See Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 25, 37; Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 534.) That intrusion was greatly compounded when Messrs. Rotter and Montovino used information from the psychiatrists’ reports to impose a new and extremely onerous condition on Pettus’s *461continued employment with the company: enrollment in a 30-day inpatient alcohol treatment program.43 We have no doubt that this coercive course of conduct—involving both a misuse of the employee’s private medical information and a penalty for his assertion of his autonomy privacy interests— was “an egregious breach of the social norms underlying the privacy right.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 37.) Accordingly, we conclude that Pettus has established the third element of a Hill prima facie claim for invasion of his constitutional right to privacy.

5. Countervailing Interests and Less Intrusive Alternatives.

Finally, we must examine the countervailing interests asserted by Du Pont to justify the invasion of Pettus’s informational and autonomy privacy rights, and determine whether Pettus has shown there were equally effective, less intrusive means to serve those interests. But in evaluating these countervailing interests, we apply a more stringent test to determine whether Du Font’s interference with Pettus’s autonomy privacy interests was justified: “Where the case involves an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy, e.g., freedom from involuntary sterilization or the freedom to pursue consensual familial relationships, a ‘compelling interest’ must be present to overcome the vital privacy interest.” (Hill, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 34; see also id. at pp. 59 (cone, and dis. opn. of Kennard, J.), (cone, and dis. opn. of George, J.), 73 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) Du Pont has established no such compelling interest.

We have already rejected the argument that the psychiatrists’ disclosure to Du Pont of Pettus’s private medical information was “necessary” to a evaluate Pettus’s request for disability leave. (See ante, pt II.D.4.) Du Pont would have had all the information it needed to verify Pettus’s disability, and to respond to Pettus’s expressions of anger toward Du Pont and Judy Mendonca, if it had simply asked its retained psychiatrists to evaluate Pettus’s disability claim and received the narrow disclosure authorized by sections 56.10, 56.20, and Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d 425.

As to Pettus’s claim of interference with his autonomy privacy interests, Du Pont offers no particular justification for requiring Pettus to enroll in the alcohol treatment program. It simply avers that it did not “force” Pettus to accept medical treatment. This contention is belied by the record of Mr. Montovino’s trial testimony. The two “options” Du Pont offered if Pettus *462refused to enter an alcohol treatment program both amounted to termination of his employment. Appellant had no real choice other than to enroll in the Garden Sullivan program, or face the termination of his 22-year career with Du Pont.

It is also clear from this record that requiring Pettus to enroll in an inpatient alcohol program was unnecessary and inappropriate to address the problems underlying his claimed disability. As the trial court found, “From all the evidence, it is undisputed that plaintiff was not at any time an alcoholic, nor perhaps even an alcohol abuser in the more common lay use of the word.” None of the physicians Du Pont consulted recommended inpatient substance abuse treatment for Pettus. Dr. Collins merely confirmed Pettus’s need for disability leave, recommended a psychiatric evaluation, and referred Pettus to Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole, too, confirmed that Pettus had a legitimate medical need for disability leave and recommended an evaluation by a substance abuse specialist. That specialist, Dr. Unger, recommended that Pettus be allowed to pursue his own suggestion of a period of abstinence from alcohol to determine whether that was causing or contributing to his disability; at trial, Dr. Unger stood by her recommendation. She said that the abstinence approach was preferable to an alcohol rehabilitation program because Pettus was motivated and wanted to pursue that course of treatment, and that “it is most respectful of a person to begin at the place they want to begin.”

Moreover, there were less intrusive alternatives to compelled inpatient alcohol treatment. Du Pont could have simply adhered to its own longstanding policy and allowed Pettus to continue on disability leave for another three months (with or without pay), during which he could have pursued appropriate medical treatment in consultation with his personal physician. At the end of the six-month period provided by its disability leave policy, Pettus could have been required to submit to a further evaluation by Du Font’s psychiatrists to determine whether he could safely return to and perform the essential functions of his warehouse job (or some other available, less stressful job for which he was qualified) and, if not, whether he would be able to do so within a reasonable period of time. If not, and in light of Pettus’s long tenure with the company, Du Pont might have pursued Dr. Unger’s suggestions of an “amicable termination ... on negotiated mutually agreeable terms,” perhaps including an “incapability pension” or other early retirement benefits, or vocational rehabilitation counseling and services. If Du Pont were not inclined to follow such a conciliatory approach, and assuming there was no unlawful discriminatory animus involved, Pettus could have at that point been involuntarily discharged without significant *463legal exposure.44 Having instead chosen to require Pettus to submit to an unwanted and unnecessary course of medical treatment as a condition of continued employment, however, Du Pont may be held to answer for violation of Pettus’s autonomy privacy rights.45

IV. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court are reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to appellant.

Kline, P. J., and Hitchens, J.,* concurred.

Petitions for a rehearing were denied October 15, 1996, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. The petitions of all respondents for review by the Supreme Court were denied December 23, 1996. Baxter, J., was of the opinion that the petitions should be granted.