Louis Pettus was employed by the DuPont Company for some 22 years. He sought time off from work under the company's shortterm disability leave policy due to workrelated stress. As required by the company policy, in order to qualify for the leave, Pettus had to submit to a DuPont-selected doctor to confirm the necessity for the leave. This company-selected doctor recommended that Pettus be evaluated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Cole; and Dr. Cole recommended that Pettus see a chemical dependency specialist, Dr. Unger. Drs. Cole and Unger submitted reports to DuPont stating that Pettus's stress condition might be caused by misuse of alcohol. Dr. Cole telephoned Pettus's supervisor after his evaluation of Pettus, and Dr. Unger prepared a written report that was sent to DuPont's employee relations manager containing information about Pettus's family and work histories, his drinking habit, and his emotional condition. When Pettus refused to enter a 30-day inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, DuPont terminated him. Pettus sued DuPont and the doctors for violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. He believed that the doctors would only report their medical conclusions on whether or not he was entitled to the unpaid short-term leave, as he did not authorize the doctors to disclose full details. The company believes that it acted in good faith and for Mr. Pettus's own good and for the safety of coworkers by providing and paying for a full medical evaluation of his problems. The company asserts that once the alcohol problem was ascertained, its insistence that it be corrected before the company could safely allow him to return to work was a sound business judgment. Decide. [Pettus v. Cole, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 46]