State Justices Set Aside Ruling on Gay Job Bias : Supreme Court: Case will be taken up after hearing of a drug-testing case that also touches on privacy issues.

The California Supreme Court, sidestepping for now a widely watched gay-rights dispute, on Friday set aside an appellate ruling that said for the first time that state law bars job bias because of sexual orientation.

Without elaborating, the justices issued a brief order saying they will review the decision reached last October by a state Court of Appeal here that prohibited an employer from forcing job applicants to take a psychological test that asked questions about sexual orientation and other personal beliefs. A final ruling is expected by summer.

Court aides said the justices first want to rule on a separate case, now pending before the court, that raises related questions over the state constitutional right to privacy. At issue in that case is whether the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. can require athletes to submit to drug tests.

In the gay rights case, the appellate court had ruled that the questions violated the right to privacy. The panel also held that state labor laws barred discrimination against homosexuals, thus supporting a contention by Gov. Pete Wilson when he vetoed a gay-rights measure last year.

Had the high court not decided to review the case, the appellate ruling would have become binding immediately. The justices set no date for further action on the case, although it is likely to be deferred until after the court rules in the drug-testing dispute.

The high court’s action Friday concerned Sibi Soroka of Lafayette and other applicants who brought suit against a department store chain that required them to take psychological tests for jobs as security guards.

Among other things, applicants were asked whether they believed in God, whether their sex lives were satisfactory and whether they were attracted to members of their own sex.

Gov. Pete Wilson last September vetoed AB 101, a bill that would have specifically protected homosexuals against job discrimination. The governor said the legislation would create burdensome litigation and cited several existing provisions of law that would adequately insure against bias.

Gay groups protested across the state, taunting Wilson at public appearances and holding marches throughout last fall in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

In October, the state Court of Appeal issued a ruling in the Soroka case lending support to the governor’s contention that existing law already banned job bias against gays.

The appeal panel held first that the state constitutional right to privacy protects job applicants and holders from being forced to answer questions about religious, sexual and other personal views. The court barred the Target Stores chain from administering psychological tests the court found intrusive.

The panel went on to hold that state labor laws bar private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Questions about sexual orientation, the panel said, are thus discriminatory and represent an attempt to “coerce an applicant to refrain from expressing a homosexual orientation by threat of loss of employment.”

The appellate ruling opened the way for state labor officials to begin enforcing provisions of the law that allow them to order employers to cease discrimination, rehire employees improperly dismissed and pay back wages and attorney fees.

Target Stores appealed to the state Supreme Court, urging among other things that the high court first decide in the drug-testing case whether the right to privacy applies to private employers and institutions.

The company did not contest the appellate court’s finding that the law bars bias because of sexual orientation. But it said that merely asking questions about sexual orientation did not violate the law--and that to be in violation, there must be proof an employer actually took discriminatory action against an employee.

Laurence F. Pulgram of San Francisco, a lawyer for Soroka, said it was “a shame” the high court had set aside the appellate panel ruling. The lower court, he said, had correctly decided that the right to privacy covered private job applicants and that state labor law bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Thomas F. Coleman of Los Angeles, an attorney specializing in employment discrimination, said he was confident labor officials would continue to move against employers who discriminate against gays.

“The law will be enforced, at least until the court says otherwise,” he said.

A lawyer for Target Stores, Nancy L. Ober, declined comment on the action.