Appellant employer, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which denied appellant's petition for writ of mandate and upheld the decision of respondent Fair Employment & Housing Commission which awarded punitive damages against appellant for violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't. Code § 12900 et seq.
Overview: Encontrar el mejor abogado especializado en accidente de motos
Appellee, Fair Employment and Housing Commission, awarded punitive damages against appellant employer, in an action brought against appellant by one of its employees. The employee alleged appellant fired her in retaliation for filing her original complaint alleging discriminated against her with regard to wages and promotional opportunities on the basis of sex in violation of the California Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA), Cal. Gov't. Code § 12900 et seq. The superior court denied appellant's petition for a writ of mandate. The appellate court affirmed and appellant sought the instant review. The court reversed, holding the power to make punitive assessments would not be implied merely from a legislative directive that an act's remedial provisions were to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. The court held that the statutory language, given its ordinary import and construed in context of the purposes and objectives of the law, together with the legislature's silence on the issue of punitive damages, compelled the conclusion that the legislature did not intend to grant the commission authority to award punitive damages.
The court reversed the lower court judgment upholding a ruling that the Fair Employment & Housing Commission had authority to award punitive damages. The court held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, did not authorize the commission to award punitive damages.
Defendant automobile manufacturer appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal (California) affirming an order of the trial court in favor of plaintiff automobile owner in her action against defendant for personal injuries she allegedly suffered due to an uncrashworthy vehicle.
In a tort action for enhanced collision injuries allegedly caused by an uncrashworthy vehicle, plaintiff automobile owner contended that she was seriously injured in an accidental collision as a result of defects in her automobile caused by the negligence of defendant automobile manufacturer. Defendant denied any defect. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, and the court of appeal affirmed. Defendant sought review. The court held that the trial court erred by giving an "ordinary consumer expectations" instruction in the complex case and by denying defendant's request for a special instruction on causation. Absent any proof of actual prejudice in the record, however, the court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff because both errors were harmless and neither error was reversible error per se.
The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal upholding a trial court order in favor of plaintiff automobile owner in her suit against defendant automobile manufacturer for personal injuries she suffered due to an uncrashworthy vehicle because no trial court error caused actual prejudice.