Dillon's complaint alleges that the City of Moorpark employed her as an administrative secretary from May 1990 until February 28, 1994. Code, § 3600.) We conclude that section 132a does not provide the exclusive remedy for this type of discrimination and that FEHA and common law remedies are available. In this case, we consider whether FEHA and common law wrongful discharge remedies are available to an employee who has suffered discrimination based on a work-related disability, meaning, for present purposes, a disability resulting from an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment" that gave rise to the discrimination. 4325.) The 1993 amendment added the phrase: "unless those provisions provide less protection to the enumerated classes of persons covered under this part." (Gov. physical disability mental disability." (Gov. law of this state relating to discrimination because of. Before the 1993 amendment, the FEHA provided: "Nothing contained in shall be deemed to repeal any of the provisions of. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1064 ( Pickrel).) More recent decisions have reached this conclusion despite a 1993 amendment to the FEHA that plaintiff argues repealed section 132a, at least in part. Several Court of Appeal decisions have held that section 132a provides the exclusive remedy for discrimination based on a work-related disability, precluding FEHA or common law wrongful discharge claims. ) This common law remedy for wrongful discharge arguably extends to disability discrimination, though we have not addressed the issue.
Code, § 12921.) Finally, we have recognized a common law protection against certain types of discriminatory or retaliatory termination of employment. (FEHA)) prohibits various types of employment discrimination, including discrimination based on a disability. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 667 ( Judson Steel).) In addition, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov.
#Moorpark body exchange code#
Labor Code section 132a (section 132a) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees "who are injured in the course and scope of their employment." When an injury of this kind results in disability, we have held that section 132a prohibits discrimination based on the disability. Quackenbush as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest. Herreras, Quackenbush & Quackenbush and William C. Maury Mills, Jr., for Real Party in Interest.īrad Seligman, Elaine Feingold, Christopher Ho, Joseph Posner, Joseph R. Armstrong as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Wernick, Armstrong & North and William J. Kuykendall, O'Melveny & Myers, Stephen P. Kane, City Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Harold A. Concurring and dissenting opinion by Brown, J., with Baxter, J., concurring.)Ĭheryl J. J., Mosk, Kennard, and Werdegar, JJ., concurring. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, Respondent THERESA L.
0 kommentar(er)
