(1982) 32 Cal.3d 211
Supreme Court of California · Decided August 30, 1982
01. Facts
Commodore Home Systems, Inc. sought a writ of mandate after the San Bernardino Superior Court denied its motion to strike portions of a complaint that alleged job discrimination and sought punitive damages (32 Cal.3d at pp. 212–213). The underlying complaint asserted employment discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the question presented was whether punitive damages are available in such a suit (id. at p. 213).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding punitive damages are available under the FEHA for intentional employment discrimination (32 Cal.3d at p. 213).
03. Issue
Whether punitive damages are available in a civil action for employment discrimination brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Holding
Punitive damages are recoverable under the FEHA in a court action for intentional employment discrimination; the statute’s remedial scheme does not limit a plaintiff to the relief the administrative agency could award, so the full range of tort-type remedies, including punitive damages, is available.
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that when the Legislature authorized civil actions to redress FEHA violations, it intended courts to be able to grant all relief generally available in civil suits, not merely the make-whole relief the Fair Employment and Housing Commission could order administratively. Permitting punitive damages serves the FEHA’s purpose of deterring and punishing intentional discrimination, consistent with the broad remedial intent behind the statute.
Practice Pointer
Commodore is the source of punitive-damages exposure in FEHA cases — a major driver of settlement value. Plaintiff’s counsel should plead punitive damages where intentional discrimination (and, against a corporate employer, managerial-agent oppression, fraud, or malice under Civil Code section 3294) can be shown, and develop the evidence of the decisionmakers’ intent and the employer’s ratification.
06. Open questions
Commodore established the availability of punitive damages under the FEHA; the separate requirements for imposing them on a corporate employer (managing-agent involvement and the clear-and-convincing oppression/fraud/malice standard of Civil Code section 3294), and the constitutional limits on their amount (see Roby v. McKesson), are governed by other authority.
Cite this entry
Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211.
“The question is whether punitive damages are available in a suit for job discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.” — 32 Cal.3d at p. 213
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].