Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

In Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 270 , 649 P.2d 912 ] (hereafter Commodore Home), we held that a court may award punitive damages in a civil suit for job discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA or Act) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). 1 The issue in the present case is whether the FEHA authorizes the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission or the commission) to impose punitive damages, a question left unresolved in Commodore Home. 2 (Id. at p. 220.) As will appear, we conclude that the FEHA does not authorize the commission to award punitive damages.

I. Background

The California Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) was enacted in 1959 (former Lab. Code, § 1410 et seq.; see Stats. 1959, ch. 121, § 1, pp. 1999-2005) and recodified in 1980 as part of the FEHA (Stats. 1980, ch. 992, § 4, p. 3140 et seq.). “The law establishes that freedom from job discrimination on specified grounds, . . . is a civil right. (§ 12921.) It declares that such discrimination is against public policy (§ 12920) and an unlawful employment practice (§ 12940). [Fn. omitted.]” (Commodore Home, supra,…

I dissent. I adopt part III of the well-reasoned opinion of the Court of Appeal (prepared by Justice Work and concurred in by Acting Presiding Justice Staniforth and Justice Wiener) as my own opinion, with a few alterations.

Dyna-Med, [Inc. (Dyna-Med),] supported by amic[i] Merchants and Manufacturers Association (MMA) [and others], 2 set forth multiple challenges to the [Fair Employment and Housing] Commission’s [(Commission)] authority to award punitive damages. In essence, they contend [the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s QFEHA [or act)] language and legislative history preclude awarding punitive damages at the agency level. They stress the statutory language, construed according to settled rules of statutory construction, does not empower the Commission to award punitive damages but limits it to remedial action designed to effectuate the underlying purposes of the act. Absent express legislative authorization, they argue it is the settled rule an administrative agency may not lawfully impose a penalty, whether civil or criminal in character.

Moreover, emphasizing the similarity between the language of title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VII) and the…

In Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 270 , 649 P.2d 912 ] (hereafter Commodore Home ), we held that a court may award punitive damages in a civil suit for job discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA or Act) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). [1] The issue in the present case is whether the FEHA authorizes the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (Commission or the commission) to impose punitive damages, a question left unresolved in Commodore Home. [2] ( Id. at p. 220.) As will appear, we conclude that the FEHA does not authorize the commission to award punitive damages.

The California Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) was enacted in 1959 (former Lab. Code, § 1410 et seq.; see Stats. 1959, ch. 121, § 1, pp. 1999-2005) and recodified in 1980 as part of the FEHA (Stats. 1980, ch. 992, § 4, p. 3140 et seq.). "The law establishes that freedom from job discrimination on specified grounds, ... is a civil right. (§ 12921.) It declares that such discrimination is against public policy (§ 12920) and an unlawful employment practice (§ 12940). [Fn. omitted.]" ( Commodore Home,…