On Feb. 28, 2012, plaintiff Mckinley Nou, 53, a security guard, was terminated from his position at Children’s Hospital Central California. Nou was previously involved in an on-the-job accident while driving employer’s security vehicle in the hospital’s parking lot on Feb. 9, 2012. After the incident, he returned to the hospital to report the accident and was then sent to the hospital’s emergency room for treatment. Physicians and nurses at Children’s Hospital Central California examined Nou, gave him a pain-killer, and released him. No reports of intoxication or impairment were made about Nou by the doctors and nurses who treated him in the E.R., or by anyone else who saw Nou that day. The next day, Nou was at home recuperating while on approved leave, when he received a call from Children’s Hospital Central California in the early afternoon, ordering him to go to the hospital to submit to a drug test before 4:00 p.m. that day. Nou went to the hospital and submitted to the drug test. Nou was then suspended for three days without pay. Two weeks later, Nou was terminated for failing the drug test. When Nou was fired, he asked about the result of the drug test but Children’s Hospital Central California refused to inform him about the result of the test. Thus, he claimed his privacy was invaded, he was wrongfully terminated, and he was coerced to make defamatory statements. Nou sued Children’s Hospital Central California, alleging invasion of privacy, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and defamation in the form of a coerced, self-publicized defamatory statement. Nou’s manager, Christine Jakel, was also initially named as a defendant, but the claims against her were dismissed. Thus, the matter continued against the hospital only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Nou was an employee of Children’s Hospital Central California with a clean record for over 18 years and who had no history of drug abuse or work-related accidents. Nevertheless, the hospital required Nou to submit to a drug test the day after the accident while Nou was at home on approved leave recuperating from his accident. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that requiring an employee to submit to a drug test on an employee’s day off violated the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Counsel also noted that the drug test revealed the presence of hydrocodone, but Nou claimed that the only way he could have ingested hydrocodone was at the Emergency Room, when he was given a pain pill. However, the hospital record showed that Nou was given a Motrin in the Emergency Room. Defense counsel noted that Children’s Hospital Central California had a drug-free workplace policy in effect at the time and that it applied to Children’s Hospital employees while they were on Children’s Hospital premises or on Children’s Hospital business. The drug-free workplace policy also provided a “reasonable suspicion” drug testing policy so that in the event that there was a reasonable suspicion that an employee was impaired or intoxicated, Children’s Hospital could require the employee to be tested. Defense counsel further noted that the drug-free workplace policy mandated that all employees who suspected that another employee was impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol to report their suspicions to management. In addition, counsel contended that the post-accident drug test policy was essentially the same, as it required a “reasonable suspicion” that drugs or alcohol played a role in an accident in order to require an employee to submit to a drug test. Thus, defense counsel argued that there was a reasonable suspicion that drugs or alcohol were involved in the accident. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued there was no reasonable suspicion, as there was no note of any suspicion from any who treated Nou in the E.R. and as Nou had no history of drug abuse., Nou claimed that because he worked for Children’s Hospital Central California for 18.5 years, he suffered severe emotional distress as a result of his termination. He also claimed that he was unable to get another job in the security business because of the allegation of an illegal failed drug test and the implication that he abused drugs. Nou claimed that he was ultimately diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, including a single severe episode with psychotic features, and that his condition was chronic and included psychological factors that affected his physical condition. As a result, he was about to start therapy at the time of trial.