California Supreme Court· 12/20/1990

Rojo v. Kliger

Citations

801 P.2d 373
52 Cal. 3d 65
276 Cal. Rptr. 130
90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9240
6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 530
90 Daily Journal DAR 14460
1990 Cal. LEXIS 5487
55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,480
54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1146

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that despite the comprehensive statutory scheme in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the statute did not preempt common law tort actions for discrimination
“[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies furthers a number of societal and governmental interests, including: (1) bolstering administrative autonomy; (2) permitting the agency to resolve factual disputes, apply its expertise and exercise statutorily delegated remedies; (3
“[T]he Unruh Civil Rights Act has no application to employment discrimination.”
fair employment law does not preempt common law claims
“[A]though an employee must exhaust 26 the FEHA administrative remedy before bringing suit on a cause of action under the act or seeking 27 1 the relief provided therein, exhaustion is not required before filing a civil action for damages 2 alleging nonstatutory causes of action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Panelli, Broussard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

252 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

76 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.