Sterling Transit Co. v. Fair Employment Practice Commission

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 3d 791·175 Cal. Rptr. 548·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1980·1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 262·28 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,543
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 1981Civ. 22896California2,318 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Sterling Transit Company, Inc., appeals the denial of its writ of mandamus seeking to reverse the California Fair Employment Practice Commission’s (Commission) decision finding its hiring practices unlawfully discriminate against persons having back physical handicaps. Sterling claims the court erred by finding substantial evidence supports the Commission finding it failed to prove its employment standards were based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ defense) and were necessary to prevent the potential employee from endangering his health (safety defense).

There is no factual dispute. Jose Bustamante was denied permanent truck driving employment by Sterling after performing as temporary help in the identical capacity the preceding 19-month period. He performed so satisfactorily he was offered permanent employment in that position. A preemployment physical revealed his low-back congenital problem (scoliosis), thus, probably to Bustamante’s surprise, he is a handicapped person. Because of Sterling’s absolute rule against hiring persons with back deficiencies, even those not presently disabling, Bustamante was discharged. Sterling handled this employment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.