Psychological testing is rarely allowed. You must justify psychological testing by a compelling interest. California courts have addressed the issue of psychological testing of job applicants in the context of the state’s constitutional right to privacy. In contrast to the employee versus applicant distinction relied upon in drug testing cases, a California Court of Appeal ruled that in psychological testing, no distinction should be made between the privacy rights of job applicants and employees. Accordingly, it held that any violation of an applicant’s right to privacy must be justified by a compelling interest. In Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., the court found that an employer could not justify a compelling interest when including questions about religious beliefs and sexual orientation in the psychological test, because no relation exists between these questions and job performance.