Pharmacist’s assistant Babette Perry claims she was left with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder after an unconventional safety exercise orchestrated by her the employer.

And by “unconventional,” we mean “stupid.”

As part of a “safety drill,” the hospital had another employee to go to Perry’s office on Christmas Eve. The six-foot-tall man told her the company’s HR director was being held hostage and claimed he had cut the office’s phone lines. The “gunman” demanded Oxycotin in exchange for the release of the HR manager.

Even after it was revealed the threat was part of an elaborate drill, Perry says she began hyperventilating. She was so unnerved she couldn’t work for a week.

She’s now suing the hospital for the costs of her pyschological treatment, as well as punitive damages.

In one case, an applicant was turned down for a job he thought should have been his. He was African American, and the hired applicant was Caucasian.

He claimed he was more qualified and “mature” than the guy who got the job. The company said both were qualified, but the other applicant was a better fit.

The rejected applicant sued for bias. In court, he gave no specific reason why his qualifications were better — his experience and education weren’t any more impressive than the successful applicant.

So the judge threw out the case. He said it isn’t a court’s job to second guess employers’ hiring decisions. Companies are free to decide who’s the best candidate for a job, as long as the decision doesn’t include discriminatory factors.

The lesson: When two or more applicants appear equally qualified, a manager will often have to use some subjective reason for choosing one over the others. That’s OK, as long as there’s no appearance of bias.

Cite: Spell v. Connecticut, Office of Chief State’s Attorney

The facts: A woman working for a manufacturing company filed a lawsuit, claiming sexual harassment. The complaint didn’t make it to court. A few years later, she sent a resume to the same company asking to be considered for “any open position.” The company responded by saying her services weren’t needed at that time. She sued, claiming it was retaliation for her original lawsuit.

The employer said: It wasn’t looking to hire anyone with her experience and skills. The fact that she’d sued the company before had nothing to do with it.

Who won? The employer.

Why: In a sense, the company got by on a technicality. To be considered a “job applicant” for the purpose of a discrimination or retaliation case, a person has to apply for a specific, open position.

If she did that, she may have had a case. Then it would have been up to the company to prove its reasons for turning her down were legit.

Granted, it’s not every day that an employee decides a company she sued is a good place to apply for a job. But still, the case has a twofold lesson for employers. First: there’s the definition of an “applicant” when it comes to discrimination suits – someone has to apply for a particular position that is vacant. Companies can’t be sued for denying someone a job if there was no job available in the first place.

Second, retaliation suits are often easier for employees to win than the initial discrimination or harassment suits. Just because this woman’s original claim lacked merit didn’t mean the company was free from liability for retaliation.

Cite: Velez v. Jannsen Ortho, LLC

The facts: A female employee applied for a promotion at her company. She was put into the pool of qualified applicants and interviewed. In the end, though, a male co-worker got the job. The woman sued, claiming she was most qualified, but was over-looked because of her gender.

The employer said: While the woman did have an impressive resume and a good employment history, the interview was the real kicker. Simply put, the male applicant’s performance was better and the hiring managers thought he was the best fit for the position.

Who won? The employer.

Why: In a statement that’s music to HR managers’ ears, the court said its job wasn’t to “act as a super personnel department that second guesses employers’ business judgments.”

Instead, the judge looked at the hiring process and found it to be fair. The woman’s credentials were good enough to put her in the “qualified” category. But after that, it was all about the interview. And in that interview, all applicants were asked the same set of questions and evaluated accordingly. Therefore, there was no evidence of any bias.

Lesson for HR: Hiring decisions are always going to somewhat subjective. (In this case, the woman “seemed unable to endure the stress of the interview,” which was a bad sign since she was applying for a stressful managerial position.) But as long as the process stays consistent, it’ll most likely hold up in court.

Cite: Santana v. City and County of Denver