Legal Opinion
Peralta Community College District v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
California Supreme Court
Decided December 20, 1990No. S009487PublishedCited by 93 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PANELLI, J.
In Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323] (hereafter DynaMed) we held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA or Act) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)1 does not authorize the Fair *44Employment and Housing Commission (Commission) to award punitive damages. In the present case we consider whether the Commission has statutory authority to award compensatory damages, a question we reserved in Dyna-Med.
I. Facts
Rose Brown was a temporary employee with the Peralta Community College District (Peralta)…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Memphis Community School District v. StachuraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Rojo v. KligerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Rojo v. KligerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- People v. CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Western Security Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Robert Rodriguez v. Airborne ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.