Trial court judgment denying petition for administrative mandate challenging a decision by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission finding the employer committed pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that there was a causal connection between the employee’s and plaintiff’s decision to end her employment; 2) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in awarding the employee backpay between May 10 and September 17, 2004; 3) substantial evidence supports the Commission’s award of emotional distress damages; and 5) substantial evidence supports the Commission’s Commission’s decision to impose an administrative fine as there was clear and convincing evidence of oppression and malice on plaintiff’s part.
Read Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm’n, No. D053492 in PDF
Read Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm’n, No. D053492 in HTML
Appellate InformationAPPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David B. Oberholtzer, Judge. Affirmed.FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONEFiled July 15, 2009Published: August 7, 2009
JudgesBefore MCCONNELL, P.J., NARES, J., MCINTYRE, J.Opinion by MCCONNELL, P.J.
CounselFor Plaintiff: Quadros & Johnson, Benjamin A. Johnson and S. Edward Slabach.
For Defendant: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Louis Verdugo, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Angela Sierra and Antonette Benita Cordero, Deputy Attorneys General.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
