# State Personnel Board v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

> California Supreme Court · August 8, 1985 · 39 Cal. 3d 422

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599755

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE PERSONNEL BOARD Et Al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION Et Al., Defendants and Appellants; RICHARD ARTHUR AMON Et Al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 8, 1985
- **Citations:** 39 Cal. 3d 422; 217 Cal. Rptr. 16; 703 P.2d 354; 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,480; 44 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1050; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 314
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mosk
- **Judges:** Broussard, Grodin, Lucas, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599755

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
Since I do not believe these three real parties in interest are suffering discrimination on the basis of physical handicap within the meaning of Government Code section 12940,1 do not reach the issue to which the majority devote their lengthy discussion.
Without repeating the analysis of my dissent in American National Ins. Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 603, 611 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 651 P.2d 1151 ], I adhere to the views therein expressed. None of the three applicants for state employment in the instant case qualifies as a person with a “physical handicap” as defined by the Legislature. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (h).) Thus there was no merit to their claim of discrimination by virtue of the so-called handicap. Because their claim has no validity, the conflict between the State Personnel Board and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission over their employment contention is purely illusory.
Without unduly editorializing, it appears to me unseemly for two state agencies to engage in protracted litigation through the entire judicial system *453 over protection or extension of their turf. Certainly each has enough legitimate problems with which to be concerned without entering into an arm-wrestling contest with another agency over jurisdiction. In a well-ordered administrative organization, this type of controversy would be settled by mutual agreement.
I would affirm the judgment, though not for the reasons given.
On September 19, 1985, the judgment was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599755. Public record. Not legal advice.