Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n, No. D053492
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
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David B. Oberholtzer, Judge. Affirmed.
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
Filed July 15, 2009
Published: August 7, 2009
Before MCCONNELL, P.J., NARES, J., MCINTYRE, J.
Opinion by MCCONNELL, P.J.
For 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
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.