Plaintiff state employee appealed from the judgment of dismissal entered following a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to her second amended complaint for damages allegedly caused by defendant employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disability as required by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
As a result of severe polio, a state employee was unable to walk long distances. She sued her employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., alleging her employer failed to make reasonable accommodations for her disability. The trial court granted demurrer of her complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a cause of action. On review, the appellate California class action lawyers concluded that although some allegations in the complaint did not state a cause of action, other allegations did. The employee pleaded a valid cause of action for damages caused by an unlawful employment practice under the FEHA. Statements of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interpreting the ADA were not applicable to California's FEHA. The employee's lawsuit was not barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act.
The judgment was affirmed as to allegations which failed to state a cause of action, but reversed as to others.
Plaintiff and intervenor appealed the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which refused to exercise its independent judgment and denied their petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant agency to set aside its decision approving a recapitalization plan.
Plaintiff and intervenor sought judicial review of an agency decision determining that a proposed recapitalization plan was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court denied their petition for a writ of mandate and refused to review the agency's decision. Plaintiff and intervenor then appealed. On review the court noted that the agency's decision was based on its expertise in the matter and that the determination that the recapitalization plan was fair, just, and equitable and should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or a finding that the record was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that, because the decision was supported by substantial evidence, no independent review was authorized by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5. The court further noted that the legislature gave the agency wide discretion to make such decisions and as long as no fundamental right that has vested was abridged, judicial review was also precluded. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the trial court in its refusal to review the agency's decision.
The denial of the writs and refusal to review the agency decision was affirmed because the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the light of the entire record, and because the conclusions were reasonable in view of the broad statutory discretion conferred upon the agency, its decision had to be upheld.
