The free counselling sessions in your benefits packet come with a worry attached, and the worry is reasonable: your employer is paying for it. Here is what the law actually lets them learn, and the one document that changes the answer.

The short answer: if you called the EAP yourself, your employer has no lawful window into it. If the counsellor you see is licensed — and a licensed psychologist, LCSW, LMFT or LPCC is — they are "a person licensed or certified pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code" and so a "provider of health care" under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,¹ which says a provider "shall not disclose medical information … without first obtaining an authorization."² The narrow employer exception applies only to information "created … as a result of employment-related health care services to an employee conducted at the specific prior written request and expense of the employer" — and even then it reaches only functional limitations, "provided that no statement of medical cause is included in the information disclosed."² A visit you initiated is not that. If instead your manager formally referred you, what opens is a compliance channel — did you go, are you cooperating — and it opens further only to the extent you initial extra boxes on an authorization you are free to refuse.³ Employers are typically given usage statistics in the aggregate — that is programme practice rather than a California rule¹⁹ ²⁰ ²¹ — and aggregate counts are not "medical information" at all, because that term is defined to require "any element of personal identifying information sufficient to allow identification of the individual."¹

What an EAP is, legally, in California

There is no California statute defining "employee assistance program." What exists is a regulation, issued under the Department of Managed Health Care director's power to "exempt from this chapter any class of persons or plan contracts" where regulating them "is not essential to the purposes of … this chapter."⁴

The regulation is 28 CCR §1300.43.14, and it exempts an EAP from most of the Knox-Keene Act if the programme "consults with employees, members of their families or licensees of such board to identify their health, mental health, alcohol and substance abuse problems and refer them to health care providers and other community resources for counseling, therapy or treatment," and complies with a list of conditions.⁵ Two of those conditions tell you what an exempt California EAP is: its purpose must be "to maintain or improve employee efficiency through identification and referrals for counseling, treatment or therapy," and "the contract does not provide for counseling, treatment or therapy with respect to health, mental health, alcohol or substance abuse problems";⁵ and "[t]he number of sessions with any client under the contract shall not exceed 3 within any six month period."⁵

So the exempt model is assess-and-refer, three sessions in six months. A programme that offers more than that is either a licensed health plan or is operating outside the exemption. Either way — and this is the part that matters to you — the Knox-Keene analysis largely drops out: the exemption preserves only the sections on advertising, grievance procedures and the Director's inspection of records.⁵ The confidentiality question runs through the CMIA and the psychotherapist privilege, which bind the clinician personally.

The one sentence that decides most cases

Civil Code §56.10(c)(8) is the employer-facing exception, and its gateway is written narrowly. It permits disclosure by "[a] provider of health care or health care service plan that has created medical information as a result of employment-related health care services to an employee conducted at the specific prior written request and expense of the employer."²

Read that against how you got there. If you found the number in a benefits email and called it, no one made a specific prior written request for your care. The exception does not open. No statutory channel opens from your therapist to your employer by virtue of the employer paying for the benefit — the compelled-disclosure routes in subdivision (b), such as a court order or subpoena, are separate and are not triggered by who funds the programme — and the general rule applies: the provider "shall not disclose medical information … without first obtaining an authorization."²

Even where the gateway does open — an employer-commissioned examination — the exception is limited to two things. Information "relevant in a lawsuit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge to which the employer and the employee are parties and in which the patient has placed in issue the patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment," usable only in that proceeding.² Or information that "[d]escribes functional limitations of the patient that may entitle the patient to leave from work for medical reasons or limit the patient's fitness to perform the patient's present employment, provided that no statement of medical cause is included in the information disclosed."²

Functional limitations without the cause. Not the diagnosis, not what you said in the room.

Is your EAP counsellor bound by all this?

Yes, if they are licensed — and a licensed psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist or professional clinical counsellor is licensed under Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, which is exactly what the CMIA's definition of "provider of health care" reaches.¹ The EAP contract does not dilute that duty; it sits on top of it.

What about the EAP company itself? The CMIA binds "health care service plan[s]" as well as providers,² and the exemption regulation describes an exempt EAP as exactly that — "[a] health care service plan which, pursuant to a contract with an employer…"⁵ The CMIA's separate "contractor" category is narrow — "a person or entity that is a medical group, independent practice association, pharmaceutical benefits manager, or a medical service organization and is not a health care service plan or provider of health care"¹ — so an EAP vendor that is neither a plan nor one of those is the residual case. The individual licensed clinician is covered either way, which is where your conversation actually happens. If you want the corporate answer, ask the EAP in writing who holds your record and under what obligation.

The privilege, which is separate and also yours

Confidentiality and privilege are two different protections and people conflate them. The privilege is a rule about testimony: "the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist if the privilege is claimed by" the patient, the patient's authorised representative, or the psychotherapist on the patient's behalf.⁶ "Psychotherapist" is defined to include licensed psychologists, licensed clinical social workers doing applied psychotherapy of a nonmedical nature, marriage and family therapists, professional clinical counsellors, and supervised associates and trainees.⁶

The article contains several exceptions, and the one people usually mean is section 1024: "There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger."⁷

Note what that exception does. It removes a shield in a legal proceeding. It does not create a pipeline to HR.

What HIPAA does and does not say

There is a sentence in the federal rules that gets quoted badly. The definition of protected health information excludes information "[i]n employment records held by a covered entity in its role as employer."⁸

That does not mean HIPAA leaves EAPs unprotected. It means that once information has landed in your employer's own personnel file, it is not PHI. The clinician, and any health plan through which the EAP is delivered, remains a covered entity: "A covered entity or business associate may not use or disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required by this subpart,"⁹ and "a covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information without an authorization that is valid under this section."⁹ Psychotherapy notes get a further layer: a covered entity "must obtain an authorization for any use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes, except" for a short list — use by the originator for treatment, the entity's own training programmes, defending a legal action the individual brought, and certain required or oversight disclosures.⁹

And in California the employment-records gap is closed anyway, because the moment your employer holds medical information about you, Civil Code §56.20 picks it up: each employer who receives it "shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure the confidentiality and protection from unauthorized use and disclosure of that information,"¹⁰ and "[n]o employer shall use, disclose, or knowingly permit its employees or agents to use or disclose medical information which the employer possesses pertaining to its employees without the patient having first signed an authorization."¹⁰

The management referral, which is the real question

If your supervisor sends you, the picture changes — but less than people fear, and the difference is a document you control.

California's own state-employee programme is the clearest published example. CalHR's manual says the EAP "may be accessed in three ways: self-referral; supervisor recommendation; and formal supervisor referral."¹¹ For a formal referral, the supervisor handbook instructs managers: "If the employee accepts, send a copy of the referral letter and Authorization to Use or Disclose (AUD) form to the assigned Workplace Support Consultant."¹¹ and its sample referral letter tells the employee that the vendor "will notify me if you have accessed EAP or if you do not keep the initial appointment."¹¹ The authorization's stated purpose is "[t]o verify whether I am participating in and cooperating with the EAP, as suggested by my employer."¹¹

That is the default: attendance and compliance. Then comes the part worth slowing down for. The same authorization form offers a checklist of further items the employee may release — including "Diagnosis/Assessment," "Treatment Plan," "Progress Report on my Treatment," "Substance Abuse Evaluation" and "Drug/Alcohol Test Results."¹¹ Those are not disclosed automatically. They are disclosed if you initial them. And the form says so: "This authorization is voluntary and you do not have to agree to authorize any use or disclosure," and "You do not need to sign this form in order to obtain treatment, enrollment, eligibility or payment for services."¹¹

The state's vendor puts the same line on its own statement of understanding: it "is expected to confidentially advise the referral source whether you are participating in the EAP and cooperating with the EAP plan," and "[y]our personal problems will not be discussed with the referral source, unless you request, in writing, that this be done."¹²

So the honest answer to a management referral is: read the form before you sign it, and initial only what you mean to.

What your employer may require at all

An employer cannot simply demand a psychological examination. Under FEHA it is an unlawful practice, "[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (2), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee, to make any inquiry whether an employee has a mental disability, physical disability, or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition."¹³

There is an exception and it carries a burden the employer must meet: "[n]otwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require any examinations or inquiries that it can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity."¹³ The regulations repeat it: "An employer or other covered entity may make disability-related inquiries, including fitness for duty exams, and require medical examinations of employees so long as the inquiries are both job-related and consistent with business necessity."¹⁴

Information an employer obtains from a permitted examination or inquiry is fenced. Employers "shall keep information obtained regarding the medical or psychological condition or history of the employee confidential, as set forth at section 11069(g),"¹⁴ and that section — written for records obtained during the interactive process — requires them to be kept on separate forms "in medical files separate from the employee's personnel file."¹⁵ Onward telling is limited: "supervisors and managers may be informed of restriction(s) on the work or duties of employees with disabilities and necessary reasonable accommodations"; "first aid and safety personnel may be informed, where appropriate, that the condition may require emergency treatment"; and investigating government officials get relevant information on request.¹⁵ Can my employer make me see a psychologist? →

Where confidentiality genuinely ends

Three duties override it, and none of them routes to your employer.

Child abuse. A mandated reporter "shall make a report to an agency" whenever they, "in the mandated reporter's professional capacity or within the scope of the mandated reporter's employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect" — by telephone "immediately or as soon as is practicably possible," with a written follow-up "within 36 hours."¹⁶ The report goes to a child welfare or law enforcement agency. What is a mandated reporter? →

Elder and dependent adult abuse. A mandated reporter who observes, is told of, or "reasonably suspects that abuse, shall report the known, suspected, or alleged instance of abuse by telephone or through a confidential internet reporting tool … immediately or as soon as practicably possible."¹⁷ That goes to adult protective services or law enforcement. Will my therapist report elder abuse? →

A threat of violence. The immunity statute defines the trigger precisely: it applies where "the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims," and the therapist discharges the duty "by making reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law enforcement agency."¹⁸ Again — the victim and the police, not the employer. Will my therapist warn someone if I threaten them? →

A worked example

Two colleagues use the same EAP in the same month.

The first calls the number herself after a bad quarter. Her employer commissioned nothing and requested nothing in writing, so §56.10(c)(8) never opens.² Her therapist is a licensed LCSW and therefore bound by §56.10(a).² No authorization is signed. Her employer will see her in a count of sessions used that quarter, and a count is not medical information because it identifies nobody.¹

The second is told by his manager that his performance has slipped and he is being formally referred. He receives a referral letter and an authorization form. He signs it, and initials only the compliance line. His employer learns that he attended and is cooperating.¹¹ It does not learn his diagnosis, because he did not initial "Diagnosis/Assessment" — and the form told him that initialling was voluntary.¹¹

Had he initialled every box, his employer would lawfully have learned all of it. Not because the law permitted the employer to take it, but because he gave it.

Q&A

Q: Does the employer see a list of who used the EAP? A: Not lawfully, and not in the standard model. The federal government's own EAP guide says host organisations "have access to information that will help them make decisions about their EAPs (this does not include information about individual clients)."¹⁹ A California county puts it more bluntly on its public page: "the County of Mendocino has no knowledge regarding who uses the program," and "[n]o record of your visits will be noted in your personnel file."²⁰ The University of California says participation "will be kept strictly confidential" and that utilisation information "can only be released with prior written consent of the employee."²¹ Ask your own employer's EAP for its confidentiality statement in writing; the answer should be specific and it should be easy for them to give.

Q: My employer pays for it. Doesn't that give them a right to know? A: Paying for care is not a right to read the file. The CMIA's employer exception turns on a "specific prior written request and expense" — both, and for that employee's care — not on who funds the benefit generally.²

Q: Can I be punished for refusing to sign the authorization? A: The California state form says signing "is voluntary and you do not have to agree to authorize any use or disclosure."¹¹ Separately, Civil Code §56.20(b) bars an employer from discriminating against an employee who refuses to sign an authorization, while allowing action where the absence of the information leaves no alternative — a qualification worth reading with an employment lawyer if you are in that position, because this page is not advice about your case.

Q: What if the EAP refers me on to a therapist my insurance pays for? A: Then the claim goes through your health plan, and a different privacy question starts — the explanation of benefits. That is a real exposure and it has its own fix. The EOB privacy route → · What is an EAP? →

Q: What is the penalty if someone does disclose? A: "A violation of the provisions of this part that results in economic loss or personal injury to a patient is punishable as a misdemeanor,"²² and an individual may sue "a person or entity who has negligently released confidential information or records" for nominal damages of one thousand dollars without proving actual injury — "[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (e)," which bars nominal damages where the defendant establishes a specific affirmative defence — plus actual damages.²²

Q: Does any of this apply if my EAP session is about drinking or drugs? A: There is a further federal layer for substance use disorder records that this page does not cover, and we will not summarise it unverified. Ask the programme directly which rules it operates under before the first session.

Our therapist directory: See its current status →

In crisis? Call or text 988 — free, 24/7.

Sources

  1. Cal. Civil Code §56.05 — "'Provider of health care' means a person licensed or certified pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code…"; (d) "'Contractor' means a person or entity that is a medical group, independent practice association, pharmaceutical benefits manager, or a medical service organization and is not a health care service plan or provider of health care"; (j) "'Medical information' means any individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor regarding a patient's medical history, mental health application information, reproductive or sexual health application information, mental or physical condition, or treatment," and "'Individually identifiable' means that the medical information includes or contains any element of personal identifying information sufficient to allow identification of the individual, such as the patient's name, address, electronic mail address, telephone number…" — california.public.law, read 14 September 2026.
  2. Cal. Civil Code §56.10 — (a) "A provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c)"; (c)(8) "A provider of health care or health care service plan that has created medical information as a result of employment-related health care services to an employee conducted at the specific prior written request and expense of the employer may disclose to the employee's employer that part of the information that: (A) Is relevant in a lawsuit, arbitration, grievance, or other claim or challenge to which the employer and the employee are parties and in which the patient has placed in issue the patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment, provided that information may only be used or disclosed in connection with that proceeding. (B) Describes functional limitations of the patient that may entitle the patient to leave from work for medical reasons or limit the patient's fitness to perform the patient's present employment, provided that no statement of medical cause is included in the information disclosed." — california.public.law.
  3. The management-referral analysis rests on sources 11 and 12 below, together with Civil Code §56.10(c)(8) at source 2. No California statute or regulation fixes what an employer learns after a management referral; what decides it is the authorization the employee signs and the scope of §56.10(c)(8).
  4. Cal. Health & Safety Code §1343(b) — "The director may by the adoption of rules or the issuance of orders deemed necessary and appropriate, either unconditionally or upon specified terms and conditions or for specified periods, exempt from this chapter any class of persons or plan contracts if the director finds the action to be in the public interest and not detrimental to the protection of subscribers, enrollees, or persons regulated under this chapter, and that the regulation of the persons or plan contracts is not essential to the purposes of this chapter." — california.public.law.
  5. 28 Cal. Code Regs. §1300.43.14 — (a) "A health care service plan which, pursuant to a contract with an employer, labor union or licensing board within the Department of Consumer Affairs, consults with employees, members of their families or licensees of such board to identify their health, mental health, alcohol and substance abuse problems and refer them to health care providers and other community resources for counseling, therapy or treatment, is exempt from the provisions of the Act (other than Sections 1360, 1360.1, 1368 and 1381, relating to advertising, client grievance procedures and the inspection of records by the Director) if the plan complies with each of the following provisions…"; (a)(2)(A) the contract's purpose must be "to maintain or improve employee efficiency through identification and referrals for counseling, treatment or therapy, in connection with personal problems affecting employee performance and the contract does not provide for counseling, treatment or therapy with respect to health, mental health, alcohol or substance abuse problems"; (a)(5) "The number of sessions with any client under the contract shall not exceed 3 within any six month period." — law.cornell.edu. The Department of Managed Health Care describes the same framework and cites "Title 28, section 1300.43.14" — dmhc.ca.gov.
  6. Cal. Evidence Code §1014 — "Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist if the privilege is claimed by:" (a) the holder of the privilege, (b) a person authorised by the holder, or (c) the psychotherapist, who must claim it on the patient's behalf unless otherwise instructed. The article's other exceptions are at §§1016–1027. — california.public.law. "Psychotherapist" is defined at §1010, whose enumerated categories include licensed psychologists, licensed clinical social workers engaged in applied psychotherapy of a nonmedical nature, licensed marriage and family therapists, licensed professional clinical counselors, and supervised associates and trainees — california.public.law.
  7. Cal. Evidence Code §1024 — "There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger." — california.public.law.
  8. 45 C.F.R. §160.103, definition of "Protected health information," excluding individually identifiable health information "(iii) In employment records held by a covered entity in its role as employer" — law.cornell.edu.
  9. 45 C.F.R. §164.502(a) — "A covered entity or business associate may not use or disclose protected health information, except as permitted or required by this subpart or by subpart C of part 160 of this subchapter." — law.cornell.edu. And §164.508(a)(1) — "Except as otherwise permitted or required by this subchapter, a covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information without an authorization that is valid under this section. When a covered entity obtains or receives a valid authorization for its use or disclosure of protected health information, such use or disclosure must be consistent with such authorization"; (a)(2) "Notwithstanding any provision of this subpart, other than the transition provisions in §164.532, a covered entity must obtain an authorization for any use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes, except:" (i) for treatment, payment or health care operations limited to "(A) Use by the originator of the psychotherapy notes for treatment; (B) Use or disclosure by the covered entity for its own training programs…; or (C) Use or disclosure by the covered entity to defend itself in a legal action or other proceeding brought by the individual," and (ii) uses or disclosures required or permitted by the listed paragraphs of §§164.502 and 164.512 — law.cornell.edu.
  10. Cal. Civil Code §56.20 — (a) "Each employer who receives medical information shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure the confidentiality and protection from unauthorized use and disclosure of that information"; (c) "No employer shall use, disclose, or knowingly permit its employees or agents to use or disclose medical information which the employer possesses pertaining to its employees without the patient having first signed an authorization under Section 56.11 or Section 56.21 permitting such use or disclosure, except" for the three listed exceptions — california.public.law. Subdivision (b), on refusal to sign, is summarised on this page rather than quoted. The requirements of a valid authorization are at §56.11(b), including (1) "Is handwritten or is in a typeface no smaller than 14-point type" and (2) "Is clearly separate from any other language present on the same page and is executed by a signature that serves no other purpose than to execute the authorization" — california.public.law. The mirror provision for employer disclosures is §56.21, "An authorization for an employer to disclose medical information shall be valid if the authorization complies with all of the following:" — california.public.law.
  11. California Department of Human Resources, HR Manual section 1418 — "EAP is an assessment, short-term counseling, and referral service designed to provide assistance in managing everyday concerns. EAP offers confidential clinical assistance" and "EAP may be accessed in three ways: self-referral; supervisor recommendation; and formal supervisor referral" — hrmanual.calhr.ca.gov. CalHR, EAP Supervisor Handbook — "If the employee accepts, send a copy of the referral letter and Authorization to Use or Disclose (AUD) form to the assigned Workplace Support Consultant"; the sample formal referral letter, "Magellan Healthcare will notify me if you have accessed EAP or if you do not keep the initial appointment"; the authorization's stated purpose, "To verify whether I am participating in and cooperating with the EAP, as suggested by my employer"; the authorization's checklist items, printed as "Current status (compliant or non-compliant)," "Attendance Records Only," "Expected Length of Treatment," "Substance Abuse Evaluation," "Progress Report on my Treatment," "Diagnosis/Assessment," "Treatment Plan," "Treatment Recommendations" and "Drug/Alcohol Test Results"; and "You do not need to sign this form in order to obtain treatment, enrollment, eligibility or payment for services" and "This authorization is voluntary and you do not have to agree to authorize any use or disclosure" — calhr.ca.gov, read 14 September 2026. Note for readers outside California state service: this is one employer's programme, published, and other employers' terms will differ.
  12. Magellan Healthcare, Statement of Understanding — "Magellan is expected to confidentially advise the referral source whether you are participating in the EAP and cooperating with the EAP plan"; "Your personal problems will not be discussed with the referral source, unless you request, in writing, that this be done"; "No one will reveal information concerning your use of the EAP to anyone outside the program except as follows," listing "(1) you consent in writing; (2) life or safety is seriously threatened; (3) disclosure is required by law" and "(4) your counselor refers you to benefits-covered treatment and the claims payor requires information." Read 14 September 2026 at a third-party host, 1alliancecps.com; we could not locate a copy hosted by Magellan or by the State at verification, and it is cited here as an example of a published EAP statement rather than as a state rule.
  13. Cal. Government Code §12940(f)(1) — unlawful, "Except as provided in paragraph (2), for any employer or employment agency to require any medical or psychological examination of an employee, to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee, to make any inquiry whether an employee has a mental disability, physical disability, or medical condition, or to make any inquiry regarding the nature or severity of a physical disability, mental disability, or medical condition"; (f)(2) "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an employer or employment agency may require any examinations or inquiries that it can show to be job related and consistent with business necessity. An employer or employment agency may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that worksite." Subdivision (f) has no paragraph (3). — california.public.law.
  14. 2 Cal. Code Regs. §11071 — (d)(1) "An employer or other covered entity may make disability-related inquiries, including fitness for duty exams, and require medical examinations of employees so long as the inquiries are both job-related and consistent with business necessity"; (d)(3)(B) "An employer may make disability-related inquiries and require employees to submit to medical examinations that are mandated or necessitated by other federal and/or state laws or regulations"; (d)(4) "Employers shall keep information obtained regarding the medical or psychological condition or history of the employee confidential, as set forth at section 11069(g)." — law.cornell.edu.
  15. 2 Cal. Code Regs. §11069(g) — "Medical information and/or records obtained during the interactive process shall be maintained on separate forms, and in medical files separate from the employee's personnel file, and shall be kept confidential," with the permitted disclosures "supervisors and managers may be informed of restriction(s) on the work or duties of employees with disabilities and necessary reasonable accommodations," "first aid and safety personnel may be informed, where appropriate, that the condition may require emergency treatment," and "government officials investigating compliance with this subchapter shall be provided relevant information on request." — law.cornell.edu.
  16. Cal. Penal Code §11166(a) — "Except as provided in subdivision (d), and in Section 11166.05, a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in the mandated reporter's professional capacity or within the scope of the mandated reporter's employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect," and "The mandated reporter shall make an initial report by telephone to the agency immediately or as soon as is practicably possible and shall prepare and send, fax, or electronically transmit a written followup report within 36 hours of receiving the information concerning the incident" — california.public.law. The section's two sentences defining "reasonable suspicion" were returned only as truncated fragments at verification and are not quoted here.
  17. Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §15630(b)(1) — "A mandated reporter who, in their professional capacity, or within the scope of their employment, has observed or has knowledge of an incident that reasonably appears to be physical abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63, abandonment, abduction, isolation, financial abuse, or neglect, or is told by an elder or dependent adult that they have experienced behavior, including an act or omission, constituting physical abuse … abandonment, abduction, isolation, financial abuse, or neglect, or reasonably suspects that abuse, shall report the known, suspected, or alleged instance of abuse by telephone or through a confidential internet reporting tool, as authorized by Section 15658, immediately or as soon as practicably possible." — california.public.law.
  18. Cal. Civil Code §43.92 — (a) the immunity, except where "the patient has communicated to the psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims"; (b) the psychotherapist "discharges his or her duty to protect by making reasonable efforts to communicate the threat to the victim or victims and to a law enforcement agency." — california.public.law.
  19. US Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employee Assistance Programs guide — "Host organizations have access to information that will help them make decisions about their EAPs (this does not include information about individual clients)"; "Utilization Rate" defined as "The annual rate at which EAP services are being utilized by those eligible for services" — opm.gov. Cited as federal guidance, not California law. We searched CalHR, DGS, CDCR and University of California pages for a California state source stating the aggregate-only proposition in terms and did not find one; that gap is why this page cites OPM and individual employers rather than asserting it as a California rule.
  20. County of Mendocino, Human Resources, Employee Assistance Program — "the County of Mendocino has no knowledge regarding who uses the program"; "EAP services are strictly confidential. It is solely your decision whether to let anyone know you have used the service"; "No record of your visits will be noted in your personnel file"; "The EAP counselor will not share information about you or your visits unless you give permission to do so" — mendocinocounty.gov, read 14 September 2026.
  21. University of California, Santa Cruz, Staff Human Resources — "Employee contact with and participation in this program is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential"; "Information regarding an employee's utilization of program services can only be released with prior written consent of the employee." — shr.ucsc.edu, read 14 September 2026.
  22. Cal. Civil Code §56.36 — (a) "A violation of the provisions of this part that results in economic loss or personal injury to a patient is punishable as a misdemeanor"; (b) "In addition to any other remedies available at law, an individual may bring an action against a person or entity who has negligently released confidential information or records concerning him or her in violation of this part, for either or both of the following:" — (b)(1) "Except as provided in subdivision (e), nominal damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000). In order to recover under this paragraph, it is not necessary that the plaintiff suffered or was threatened with actual damages," and (b)(2) "The amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the patient." Subdivision (e) provides that where a defendant establishes the affirmative defence in (e)(2), the court "shall award any actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, but shall not award nominal damages" — california.public.law. The conditions of the (e)(2) affirmative defence and the administrative-fine provisions in subdivision (c) were not retrievable verbatim at verification and are described rather than quoted.

Paid for by participating therapists. Inclusion is computed from availability data — never purchased. No ads, no data sold.