Skip to main content

Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Com.

Cal. Ct. App.June 28, 2000No. B125249Cited 1 time
Mixed ResultNancy A. Konig$10,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Mallano
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's partial grant of the petition for writ of mandamus, striking the $10,000 emotional distress damages award as unconstitutional under California's judicial powers clause, while upholding the $10,000 civil penalty and the finding of racial discrimination.

What This Ruling Means

**Employment Discrimination Case Affects Damage Awards** In this California case, Nancy A. Konig challenged the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission after it found her liable for racial discrimination and ordered her to pay penalties and damages totaling $20,000. The court reached a split decision. It upheld the commission's finding that racial discrimination had occurred and allowed the $10,000 civil penalty to stand. However, the court struck down the additional $10,000 award for emotional distress damages, ruling that the housing commission lacked the constitutional authority to order such payments under California law. This ruling matters for workers because it clarifies the types of remedies available when filing discrimination complaints with state agencies. While workers can still seek civil penalties against discriminating employers through the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, they may need to pursue emotional distress damages through separate court proceedings rather than through the administrative process. The case demonstrates that discrimination victims have multiple avenues for seeking justice, but the specific remedies available may depend on which legal path they choose. Workers should understand that administrative agencies and courts have different powers when it comes to ordering compensation for discrimination.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.