Snipes v. Wilkie

Background

This was a Title VII employment-discrimination case brought by Allison Snipes against the United States and Robert Wilkie, the Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Snipes alleged that her former supervisor discriminated against her because of religion and sex, violated her privacy, and intentionally caused emotional distress. She sought emotional-distress damages for each of her six causes of action and claimed $1 million in mental and emotional distress damages.

The government moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 to require an independent mental examination. It argued that Snipes had placed her mental condition “in controversy” by claiming emotional-distress damages, bringing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, describing specific mental or psychiatric injuries, and relying on evidence concerning her mental health. The opinion contains redacted passages concerning some of Snipes’s reported symptoms and treatment.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 35 allows a court, on a showing of good cause, to order a party whose physical or mental condition is in controversy to undergo an examination by a qualified examiner. The court applied the factors identified in Turner v. Imperial Stores for determining whether a plaintiff’s mental condition is in controversy.

The court found that Snipes’s mental condition was in controversy for several reasons. First, she brought a specific claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which went beyond ordinary emotional-distress damages. Although Snipes said she would withdraw that claim, she had not yet dismissed it or sought permission to amend her complaint. Second, the court found that her allegations and evidence involved specific mental or psychiatric injuries. The court stated that those alleged conditions could remain relevant to issues such as causation even if Snipes did not ultimately present them to the fact finder. Third, the court found that her allegations of “extreme and enduring” emotional distress and the claimed $1 million in damages were not merely ordinary or “garden-variety” emotional distress. The court did not rely on Snipes’s offer of expert testimony or on any concession by Snipes that her condition was in controversy.

The court also found good cause for the examinations. It reasoned that an examination could help evaluate whether the government’s conduct caused Snipes’s claimed distress and could assess the nature, severity, extent, expected duration, and appropriate treatment of her injuries. The court considered the government’s account that Snipes had voluntarily sought contact with her supervisor, said she was suicidal, agreed to call her parents for emotional support, and disclosed her relationship status during the call. It also considered the government’s contention that other events might have contributed to her distress, Snipes’s late production of incomplete and redacted mental-health records, and the seriousness of the claimed injuries. The court concluded that a deposition alone would not provide the same medical information.

Scope and Disposition

The court rejected Snipes’s request to limit the examination to six hours. It held that she had not shown that the proposed examiners should be prevented from using their professional discretion about the manner and duration of appropriate examinations.

The court granted the government’s motion to compel an independent mental examination. It ordered Snipes to attend psychological testing and an examination before Amanda Gregory, Ph.D., on April 10, 2020, at a specified San Francisco location, for up to nine hours including breaks. It separately ordered her to attend a psychiatric examination before Renee Binder, M.D., on April 17, 2020, at a specified San Francisco location, for up to four hours. Snipes was required to attend both examinations alone, without counsel or another third party. The examinations could be audio-recorded by the examiners, and Snipes could also make an audio recording. Subject to a protective order, the government was required to provide reports and related testing reports to Snipes’s counsel or designee, except for materials protected by trade-secret law and psychologists’ ethical obligations. The order also allowed the parties to file a stipulation if the examinations needed to be rescheduled because of the COVID-19 outbreak and related shelter-in-place orders.