Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n, No. D053492

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on August 10, 2009 12:30 PM

Trial court judgment denying petition for administrative mandate challenging a decision by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission finding the employer committed pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that there was a causal connection between the employee's and plaintiff's decision to end her employment; 2) the Commission did not abuse its discretion in awarding the employee backpay between May 10 and September 17, 2004; 3) substantial evidence supports the Commission's award of emotional distress damages; and 5) substantial evidence supports the Commission's Commission's decision to impose an administrative fine as there was clear and convincing evidence of oppression and malice on plaintiff's part.   

Read Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n, No. D053492 in PDF

Read Sasco Electric v. CA Fair Employment and Housing Comm'n, No. D053492 in HTML

Appellate Information
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David B. Oberholtzer, Judge. Affirmed.
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
Filed July 15, 2009
Published: August 7, 2009

Judges
Before MCCONNELL, P.J., NARES, J., MCINTYRE, J.
Opinion by MCCONNELL, P.J.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Quadros & Johnson, Benjamin A. Johnson and S. Edward Slabach.

For Defendant: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Louis Verdugo, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Angela Sierra and Antonette Benita Cordero, Deputy Attorneys General.

Find a Lawyer

More Options