holding that, although an employee must exhaust administrative remedies under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act before bringing suit on a cause of action under the Act or seeking the relief provided therein, “exhaustion is not required before fifing a civil action for damages alleging nonstatutory causes of action”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, although an employee must exhaust administrative remedies under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act before bringing suit on a cause of action under the Act or seeking the relief provided therein, “exhaustion is not required before fifing a civil action for damages alleging nonstatutory causes of action”
- holding that "although an employee must exhaust the FEHA administrative remedy before bringing suit on a cause of action under the act or seeking the relief provided therein, exhaustion is not required before filing a civil action for damages alleging nonstatutory causes of action"
- holding that despite the comprehensive statutory scheme in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the statute did not preempt common law tort actions for discrimination
- dismissing Unruh Act claim where plaintiffs’ complained of “punishments 6 stemmed from his employment relationships” with defendants
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned — as noted by a later court
Randall Co., 144 Cal. App. 3d 514, 194 Cal. Rptr. 520 (1983), called into doubt by Rojo.
medium confidence
The opinion
BROUSSARD, J.
I concur.
I agree with the majority that an employee may bring a common law action for injuries arising from sexual discrimination or harassment without exhausting remedies under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). However, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Peralta Community College Dist. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., ante, page 40 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 114 , 801 P.2d 357 ], I disagree with language in the majority opinion asserting that the Fair Employment and *92 Housing Commission lacks authority to award compensatory damages for such injuries.
Kennard, J., concurred.