About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


23 U.S.F. L. Rev. 145 (1988-1989)
Employment Discrimination and Wrongful Discharge: Does the California Fair Employment and Housing Act Displace Common Law Remedies

handle is hein.journals/usflr23 and id is 155 raw text is: ARTICLE Employment Discrimination and Wrongful Discharge: Does the California Fair Employment and Housing Act Displace Common Law Remedies? By DAVID BENJAMIN OPPENHEIMER Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, Uni- versity of San Francisco; J.D., Harvard Law School (1978); B.A., University With- out Walls/Berkeley (1972) MARGARET M. BAUMGARTNER* Introduction1 IN 1959, THE CALIFORNIA Legislature enacted the Fair Em- ployment Practices Act (FEPA).2 The FEPA broadly prohib- * Class of 1990. 1. As this article went to press, the California Court of Appeal issued a new decision in Rojo v. Kliger (Rojo II), 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4207 (Mar. 29, 1989). The first Rojo deci- sion, Rojo v. Kliger, 205 Cal. App. 3d 646, 252 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1988), which was withdrawn upon grant of a petition for rehearing, is discussed infra note 215. Rojo II holds that actions under the Fair Employment and Housing Act are entirely independent of other common law and constitutional claims for sex discrimination in employment. Most of the conclusions in Rojo II, and much of its reasoning, are consistent with to those expressed in this Article. 2. Ch. 121, § 1, 1959 Cal. Stat. 1999, 1999-2005 (originally codified at CAL. LAB. CODE §§