Opinion ID: 547494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mental Condition in Controversy

Text: 14 Tenneco contends that Acosta, by alleging discrimination, has placed his mental condition in issue. In support of this contention, Tenneco cites cases holding that plaintiffs alleging discrimination place their mental condition in issue. 6 The orders in those cases, however, were based on allegations of emotional and/or mental damages; accordingly, the cases are inapplicable to the present case. Acosta neither seeks nor alleges he has suffered emotional or mental damages. While Tenneco's failure to mitigate defense places into issue the availability of comparable employment and the reasonableness of Acosta's efforts to obtain comparable employment, the defense cannot be construed as placing into controversy Acosta's mental or physical condition. 15 A ruling in Tenneco's favor would sanction a mental examination in every age discrimination case. We decline to impose such a requirement under Rule 35, absent exigent circumstances which are not present here. See Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 525, 531 (N.D.Fla.1988) (ruling in favor of a mental examination ... would endorse mental examinations in every Title VII hostile work environment sexual harassment case); Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 833, 840 740 P.2d 404, 409, 239 Cal.Rptr. 292, 297 (1987) (noting that a simple sexual harassment claim asking for compensation for having to endure an oppressive work environment or for wages lost following an unjust dismissal would not normally create a controversy regarding the plaintiff's mental state). Otherwise, a broad interpretation of Rule 35 would render meaningless the rule's express limitations.