Sasco Electric v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

Good Law
176 Cal. App. 4th 532·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1299·97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 482
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 2009D053492California4,935 words

Opinion

Opinion

McConnell, J.

INTRODUCTION

An employer appeals a judgment denying a petition for administrative mandate challenging a decision by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) finding the employer committed pregnancy discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The employer contends the Commission abused its discretion because the Commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law and its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the judgment.

I

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from a judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, we consider “whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence and the case, as here, does not involve…

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.