Wilson

Wilson v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 623·46 Cal. App. 4th 1213·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 419·96 Daily Journal DAR 7808·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4875
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1996H014295California15,225 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

I agree with my colleagues that, so far as relevant to Associated Aviation Underwriters’ assertion that its age-based discrimination was consistent with sound insurance underwriting practice, the Insurance Commissioner may be deemed to have far more expertise than the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). I also acknowledge the possibility that FEHC involvement in claims such as Claude J. Wilson’s would introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty into insurance underwriting. For both reasons, I believe it might well be preferable to permit, or even to require, the FEHC to defer to the Insurance Commissioner on this narrow issue. But I find no provision in the law for such deferral. The only issue before us is whether the FEHC had jurisdiction to address Wilson’s claim, and this issue must be resolved not on the basis of my perception of what might be a desirable result but rather by construction and application of relevant statutes. On the basis of my understanding of the statutes I cannot agree that the FEHC lacked jurisdiction. I therefore respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ conclusion that the superior court’s judgment must be reversed.

As a general rule an…

Lead Opinion

Cottle, J.

An insurer issued a liability insurance policy to a company regarding its company plane, excluding coverage for a pilot over 60 years of age. Based upon a complaint by the pilot, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed an accusation that the insurer had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) by discriminating against the pilot based on his age. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) determined that it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. The pilot petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandamus directing the FEHC to set aside its decision and decide the merits of the case, and the trial court granted the petition. We conclude that the writ was not properly granted, and therefore reverse the judgment.

I. Factual Background

In 1985, National Vitamin, Inc. (National Vitamin), a company in the business of manufacturing and distributing vitamins, purchased an aircraft to fly its executives and customers throughout the western United States. The *1216 aircraft was a “Beech 90 King Air,” an eight-passenger, twin engine, turboprop aircraft. National Vitamin retained 1 respondent Claude J. Wilson…

Opinion

Kenney, Burd & Markowitz, Stephen C. Kenney and Philip D. Witte for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Reiland & Reiland, Hal P. Reiland and Melinda P. Reiland for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Bradley G. Booth, Suzanne M. Ambrose and Carole F. Grossman for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

OPINION

COTTLE, P.J.

An insurer issued a liability insurance policy to a company regarding its company plane, excluding coverage for a pilot over 60 years of age. Based upon a complaint by the pilot, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed an accusation that the insurer had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) by discriminating against the pilot based on his age. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) determined that it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter. The pilot petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative mandamus directing the FEHC to set aside its decision and decide the merits of the case, and the trial court granted the petition. We conclude that the writ was not properly granted, and therefore reverse the judgment.

In 1985, National Vitamin, Inc. (National Vitamin), a company in the business of…

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.