Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 245 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 718; 814 P.2d 704] (1991)

Walnut?Creek?Manor?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?245?,?284?Cal.Rptr.?718;?814?P.2d?704]

[No.?S015131.
Aug?29,?1991.]

WALNUT?CREEK?MANOR?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?FAIR?EMPLOYMENT?AND?HOUSING?COMMISSION,?Defendant?and?Appellant.

(Superior?Court?of?Contra?Costa?County,?No.?304628,?David?A.?Dolgin,?Judge.)

(Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?Arabian?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring.)

COUNSEL

Capps,?Staples,?Ward,?Hastings?&?Dodson,?William?H.?Staples?and?Marsha?L.?Stephenson?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.

John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Andrea?Sheridan?Ordin,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Marian?M.?Johnston?and?M.?Anne?Jennings,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.

OPINION

PANELLI,?J.

Pursuant?to?section?12987?of?the?California?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Act?(Gov.?Code,???12900?et?seq.)?(the?act),?the?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Commission?(the?commission)?is?authorized?to?order?a?respondent?who?is?found?to?have?violated?the?housing?provisions?of?the?act?to?pay?”punitive?damages?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?one?thousand?dollars?($1,000)?…?and?the?payment?of?actual?damages.”?(Gov.?Code,???12987,?subd.?(2).)fn.?1?We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?construe?and?determine?the?constitutionality?of?the?damages?provision?of?the?act.

We?conclude?that?while?section?12987?authorizes?the?commission?to?award?compensatory?damages,?an?administrative?award?of?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress?violates?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?the?California?Constitution?(art.?VI,???1;?see?McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?348?[261?Cal.Rptr.?318,?777?P.2d?91]?[hereafter?McHugh]).?We?further?conclude,?however,?that?the?section?is?severable?in?its?applications.?We?thus?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?the?emotional?distress?compensatory?damages?part?of?the?award?in?this?case?must?be?stricken.?[54?Cal.3d?252]?Finally,?we?determine?that?pursuant?to?section?12987,?the?act?authorizes?only?one?punitive?damages?award?against?a?respondent?for?a?course?of?discriminatory?conduct?against?the?same?individual?on?the?same?unlawful?basis.

1. Facts

This?case?arises?from?a?complaint?for?housing?discrimination?filed?with?the?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Department?(the?department)?by?Robert?Cannon,?an?unmarried?Black?man,?alleging?that?Walnut?Creek?Manor?(Manor)?had?discriminated?against?him?by?refusing?to?rent?him?a?one-bedroom?apartment.?Following?an?investigation,?the?department?issued?an?accusation?charging?Manor,?owner?Marilyn?Boswell,?and?rental?manager?Edith?Indridson?with?violating?section?12955,?subdivisions?(a)?and?(d)?of?the?act?by?refusing?to?rent?to?Cannon?on?grounds?of?race?and?marital?status.?After?a?hearing?before?an?administrative?law?judge?(ALJ),?the?commission?made?the?following?findings?of?fact.

Manor?is?a?418-unit?apartment?complex.?In?November?1979,?when?Cannon?first?applied?for?a?one-bedroom?apartment,?Manor?was?consistently?full?and?had?a?waiting?list.?Cannon?was?told?the?waiting?period?was?one?to?one?and?a?half?years?and?that?he?should?check?back?every?six?months?to?see?where?he?stood?on?the?waiting?list.?For?the?ensuing?two?and?one-half?years?Cannon?called?back?approximately?twice?a?year?to?determine?his?position?on?the?waiting?list.

In?August?1981,?more?than?one?and?a?half?years?after?Cannon?first?applied,?Edith?Indridson?assumed?the?position?of?rental?manager.?At?that?time?she?believed?Cannon?had?waited?the?normal?time?and?”was?thus?ready?to?be?rented?to.”?Nevertheless,?Indridson?made?no?attempt?to?offer?Cannon?available?one-?bedroom?apartments,?but?did?call?other?non-Black?applicants?who?had?applied?after?Cannon.

Following?her?first?meeting?with?Cannon?in?November?1981,?Indridson?marked?his?name?with?the?code?designation?Manor?used?for?undesirable?tenants,?but?after?the?department?commenced?its?investigation?in?June?of?1982,?she?altered?the?code?rating?to?desirable.?In?April?1982?Cannon?was?first?on?the?waiting?list,?but?when?he?visited?the?rental?office?on?April?5,?Indridson?refused?to?tell?him?where?he?stood.?After?this?encounter,?Indridson?wrote?owner?Marilyn?Boswell?for?advice?on?how?to?treat?Cannon.?In?response,?Boswell?sent?Indridson?a?copy?of?an?October?9,?1980,?opinion?letter?written?by?her?attorney?after?a?race?discrimination?complaint?was?filed?against?Phoenix?Manor,?a?housing?development?Boswell?owned?in?Arizona.?The?[54?Cal.3d?253]?letter?recommended?that?applicants?be?required?to?fill?out?a?questionnaire?on?their?interests?and?activities?and?that?the?rental?agents?be?instructed?to?look?to?the?questionnaire?information?for?”other,?nondiscriminatory?reasons”?for?refusing?to?rent?to?”undesired”?applicants.?After?receiving?the?letter,?Indridson?asked?Cannon?to?fill?out?a?questionnaire,?although?she?made?no?similar?request?of?anyone?else?then?on?the?waiting?list.?After?Cannon?had?completed?the?questionnaire,?Indridson?told?him?she?did?not?have?any?rentals?available.

In?May?1982,?while?checking?the?availability?of?mobilehomes?for?rent?at?a?Contra?Costa?County?mobilehome?park,?Cannon?met?a?non-Black?man?who?told?Cannon?he?had?applied?to?Manor?a?few?months?before?and?had?moved?in?the?same?month.?The?next?day?Cannon?called?Manor?and?again?asked?where?he?stood?on?the?waiting?list.?Indridson?refused?to?tell?him.?On?the?following?Wednesday,?Indridson’s?day?off,?Cannon?called?Manor?without?identifying?himself?and?asked?how?long?the?waiting?list?was.?He?was?told?the?list?was?one?year?long?and?was?encouraged?to?apply.?Cannon?thereupon?filed?his?complaint?with?the?department.

From?November?1981?until?June?28,?1982,?the?date?of?Cannon’s?complaint,?Indridson?rented?18?apartments?to?later,?non-Black?applicants.?Eleven?of?these?were?rented?between?March?and?June;?of?these,?three?were?rented?to?married?couples.?From?June?1982?to?July?1983,?Indridson?rented?another?24?one-bedroom?apartments?to?later,?non-Black?applicants.

The?ALJ?found?Cannon’s?claim?of?racial?discrimination?meritorious?and?awarded?Cannon?$1,500?in?unspecified?compensatory?damages?and?$650?in?punitive?damages?assessed?against?rental?manager?Edith?Indridson.?The?commission?did?not?adopt?the?ALJ’s?proposed?decision;?rather,?after?considering?additional?written?argument,?the?commission?found?that?Cannon?had?been?discriminated?against?on?the?basis?of?marital?status?as?well?as?race.?The?commission?awarded?Cannon?special?damages?for?the?cost?of?his?rent?and?utilities?in?excess?of?what?he?would?have?paid?at?Manor,?$162.50?in?attorney?fees,?and?$50,000?in?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress.?In?addition,?the?commission?awarded?Cannon?$40,635?in?punitive?damages?(calculated?at?$1,000?for?each?of?35?apartment?rentals?made?to?others?while?his?application?was?pending?and?within?the?120-day?jurisdictional?time?period?[??12980]?from?February?28,?1982,?forward,?as?adjusted,?plus?interest).?The?commission?determined?that?Manor,?owner?Marilyn?Boswell,?and?rental?manager?Indridson?were?jointly?and?severally?liable?for?the?punitive?damage?award.?Finally,?the?commission?issued?a?cease?and?desist?order?and?ordered?affirmative?relief,?which?required?Manor?to?offer?Cannon?the?first?[54?Cal.3d?254]?available?one-bedroom?apartment,?post?certain?notices,?and?conduct?training?sessions?for?employees?to?educate?them?about?housing?discrimination?law.

On?petition?for?writ?of?administrative?mandamus?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1094.5),?the?trial?court?remanded?the?case?to?the?commission?with?directions?to?reconsider?the?finding?of?marital?status?discrimination?and?limit?punitive?damages?to?$1,000,?as?adjusted.?All?parties?appealed.

The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?in?part?and?reversed?in?part.?The?Court?of?Appeal?interpreted?the?statute?as?authorizing?the?commission?to?award?unlimited?compensatory?damages?for?housing?discrimination.?The?court?held,?however,?that?while?the?commission’s?award?of?special?damages?was?valid,?the?award?of?general?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress?constituted?an?unconstitutional?exercise?of?judicial?power?by?a?nonjudicial?body?in?violation?of?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?the?California?Constitution?(art.?VI,???1)?(hereafter?article?VI,?section?1?or?the?judicial?powers?clause).fn.?2?The?Court?of?Appeal?thus?determined?that?the?$50,000?compensatory?damage?award?for?emotional?distress?should?be?stricken.

The?Court?of?Appeal?reversed?the?trial?court’s?ruling?that?the?statute?limits?the?punitive?damages?award?against?Manor,?Boswell?and?Indridson?to?a?total?of?$1,000.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?section?12987?authorizes?the?commission?to?order?a?separate?award?of?punitive?damages?for?each?act?of?discrimination?within?the?jurisdictional?period.?The?court?determined,?however,?that?as?to?Indridson?the?$40,635?punitive?damages?award?was?excessive?as?a?matter?of?law,?because?the?amount?exceeded?80?percent?of?her?net?worth?of?$50,000.?(Storage?Services?v.?Oosterbaan?(1989)?214?Cal.App.3d?498,?514-516?[262?Cal.Rptr.?689].)?The?court?directed?that?the?punitive?damages?award?be?remanded?to?the?commission?for?determination?of?whether?each?of?the?35?rentals?to?later?non-?Black?applicants?was?the?rental?of?a?one-bedroom?apartment?to?one?person?(rather?than?a?couple),?and?for?reconsideration,?in?light?of?her?net?worth,?of?Indridson’s?liability?for?such?punitive?damages?as?the?commission?should?find?appropriate.

The?commission?and?respondents?Manor,?Boswell?and?Indridson?each?petitioned?for?review.fn.?3[54?Cal.3d?255]

1. Discussion
2. The?Award?of?Actual?Damages

Section?12987?authorizes?the?commission?to?order?a?respondent?who?has?violated?the?housing?provisions?of?the?act?to?pay?”actual?damages.”?[1]?Neither?party?disputes?that?the?term?”actual?damages”?as?used?in?section?12987?means?compensatory?damages,?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?so?held.?This?conclusion?follows?from?the?legal?as?well?as?the?common?and?usual?meaning?of?the?term.?(See?22?Am.Jur.2d?(rev.)?Damages,???24,?p.?50;?Oleck,?Damages?to?Person?and?Property?(rev.?ed.?1961)???12,?p.?22?[hereafter?Oleck];?see?also?Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.?(2d?ed.?1958)?p.?27,?col.?3?[defining?”actual”?as?”[e]xisting?in?act?or?reality;?…?in?fact;?real;-opposed?to?…?speculative”].)?Although?most?cases?construing?the?term?have?done?so?in?the?context?of?a?judicial?rather?than?an?administrative?proceeding,?nothing?in?the?history?of?the?act?suggests?that?in?authorizing?the?commission?to?award?actual?damages?the?Legislature?intended?the?phrase?to?be?construed?differently?than?it?is?understood?in?the?law?of?damages.?(Cf.?Morehead?v.?Lewis?(N.D.Ill.?1977)?432?F.Supp.?674,?678?[construing?the?federal?fair?housing?act].)?The?inference,?rather,?is?to?the?contrary.fn.?4?[2]?Consequently,?like?the?parties,?we?take?no?issue?with?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?determination?that?the?phrase?”actual?damages”?as?used?in?section?12987?means?compensatory?damages,?or?that?compensatory?damages?include?nonquantifiable?general?damages?for?emotional?distress?and?pecuniarily?measurable?special?damages?for?out-of-pocket?losses.?(See?Hess?v.?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Com.?(1982)?138?Cal.App.3d?232,?237?[187?Cal.Rptr.?712,?33?A.L.R.4th?958];?Weider?v.?Hoffman?(M.D.Pa.?1965)?238?F.Supp.?437,?445?[citing?25?C.J.S.,?Damages,???2];?see?also?Oleck,?supra,???12,?at?pp.?22-23,???80,?at?pp.?59-60;?22?Am.Jur.2d,?supra,???23,?at?p.?50,???28,?at?p.?56.)

[3a]?We?turn,?then,?to?the?question?whether?an?administrative?award?of?general,?as?opposed?to?special,?compensatory?damages?violates?the?judicial?[54?Cal.3d?256]?powers?clause.?In?resolving?this?issue,?we?look?for?guidance?to?our?recent?decision?in?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348.

In?McHugh?we?considered?whether?a?local?charter?amendment?authorizing?administrative?adjudication?of?excess?rent?claims?and?imposition?of?treble?damages?was?unconstitutional?as?in?violation?of?article?VI,?section?1.?[4]?Reiterating?the?principle?that?”[a]gencies?not?vested?by?the?Constitution?with?judicial?powers?may?not?exercise?such?powers”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?356),?we?there?articulated?the?following?standard:?”An?administrative?agency?may?constitutionally?hold?hearings,?determine?facts,?apply?the?law?to?those?facts,?and?order?relief-including?certain?types?of?monetary?relief-so?long?as?(i)?such?activities?are?authorized?by?statute?or?legislation?and?are?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?the?administrative?agency’s?primary,?legitimate?regulatory?purposes,?and?(ii)?the?’essential’?judicial?power?(i.e.,?the?power?to?make?enforceable,?binding?judgments)?remains?ultimately?in?the?courts,?through?review?of?agency?determinations.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?372,?italics?in?original.)?The?agency,?we?emphasized,?may?exercise?”only?those?powers?that?are?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?[its]?primary,?legitimate?regulatory?purposes.”?(Ibid.,?italics?in?original.)

Although?in?McHugh?we?reserved?the?question?now?before?us-i.e.,?whether?an?administrative?agency’s?award?of?general?compensatory?damages?violates?the?judicial?powers?clause?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?375,?fn.?38),?we?clearly?set?out?the?approach?for?resolving?the?issue.?In?applying?the?first?or?substantive?prong?of?the?standard,?i.e.,?the?”reasonable?necessity/legitimate?regulatory?purpose”?requirements,?we?first?inquire?whether?the?award?is?authorized?by?legislation,?and?is?”reasonably?necessary?to?accomplish?the?administrative?agency’s?regulatory?purposes.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?374.)?Next,?we?must?”closely?scrutinize?the?agency’s?asserted?regulatory?purposes?in?order?to?ascertain?whether?the?challenged?remedial?power?is?merely?incidental?to?a?proper,?primary?regulatory?purpose,?or?whether?it?is?in?reality?an?attempt?to?transfer?determination?of?traditional?common?law?claims?from?the?courts?to?a?specialized?agency?whose?primary?purpose?is?the?processing?of?such?claims.”?(Ibid.)

[3b]?The?commission?argues?that?where?the?Legislature?has?clearly?authorized?an?administrative?agency?to?award?monetary?relief,?we?should?not?substitute?our?judgment?for?the?legislative?decision?that?such?authority?is?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?the?agency’s?regulatory?purposes;?rather,?pursuant?to?due?process?principles,?our?only?inquiry?should?be?whether?the?remedy?is?procedurally?fair?and?related?to?a?proper?legislative?goal.?(See,?e.g.,?Hale?v.?Morgan?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?388,?398?[149?Cal.Rptr.?375,?584?P.2d?512].)?Here,?the?commission?argues,?the?Legislature?has?clearly?authorized?it?[54?Cal.3d?257]?to?award?actual?damages,?the?eradication?of?discrimination?in?housing?is?a?legitimate?regulatory?purpose,?and?general?damages?limited?to?remedying?the?effects?of?the?unlawful?discriminatory?conduct?serve?to?effectuate?the?purposes?of?the?act.

Whatever?merit?the?commission’s?argument?may?have?in?the?context?of?a?due?process?analysis,?in?applying?the?judicial?powers?doctrine?our?role?is?not?so?limited.?[5]?McHugh?clearly?contemplated?that?the?mere?fact?of?legislative?authorization?does?not?shield?a?challenged?power?from?scrutiny?under?the?reasonable?necessity/legitimate?regulatory?purpose?prong?of?the?substantive?test.?This?much?is?clear?from?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pages?378-379,?where?the?court?conceded?treble?damages?were?authorized?by?the?city?charter,?yet?found?such?damages?violative?of?the?reasonable?necessity/legitimate?purpose?prong,?in?part?because,?in?the?court’s?view,?there?were?other,?less?intrusive?means?of?accomplishing?the?asserted?regulatory?goal.?It?is?thus?apparent?from?McHugh?that?our?judicial?powers?analysis?contemplates?a?somewhat?higher?level?of?scrutiny?than?rational?basis.

The?purposes?of?the?housing?provisions?of?the?act?are?to?prevent?and?eliminate?specified?discriminatory?practices?in?the?sale?or?rental?of?housing.?(See????12920?[housing?discrimination?against?public?policy],?12955?[unlawful?practices],?12980?[procedure?for?prevention?and?elimination?of?housing?discrimination];?cf.?Peralta?Community?College?Dist.?v.?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Com.?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?40,?48?[276?Cal.Rptr.?114,?801?P.2d?357]?(hereafter?Peralta)?[employment?provisions].)?To?this?end,?the?act?authorizes?any?person?claiming?to?be?the?victim?of?unlawful?discrimination?to?file?a?verified?complaint?with?the?department,?and?authorizes?the?department,?after?preliminary?investigation,?to?seek?to?resolve?the?complaint?by?conference,?conciliation?and?persuasion.?If?that?fails?or?is?unwarranted,?the?director?may?issue?an?accusation?to?be?heard?by?the?commission.?(???12980,?subds.?(a),?(c),?12981.)?Pending?resolution?of?the?complaint,?the?department?may?in?appropriate?cases?seek?an?injunction?preventing?the?owner?of?the?property?from?taking?any?further?action?with?respect?to?its?rental,?lease?or?sale.?(??12983.)?If,?after?hearing,?the?commission?finds?the?respondent?has?engaged?in?an?unlawful?practice,?it?shall?issue?a?cease?and?desist?order?and,?in?addition,?may?order?the?respondent?to?offer?the?complainant?the?same?or?a?like?housing?accommodation,?the?payment?of?punitive?damages?not?to?exceed?$1,000,?the?payment?of?actual?damages,?and?affirmative?or?prospective?relief.?(??12987.)

If,?by?contrast,?the?department?fails?to?issue?an?accusation?within?150?days?after?the?filing?of?a?complaint,?or?earlier?determines?none?will?issue,?the?department?issues?a?right-to-sue?letter,?notifying?the?complainant?of?the?right?[54?Cal.3d?258]?to?bring?a?civil?action?in?court.?(??12980,?subd.?(d).)?Although?the?act?expressly?provides?that?the?filing?of?a?complaint?and?pursuit?of?conciliation?or?remedy?under?the?act?will?not?prejudice?the?complainant’s?right?to?pursue?judicial?relief?under?other?applicable?laws,?it?further?provides?(1)?that?if?a?civil?suit?has?been?filed?under?the?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Act?(Civ.?Code,???51?et?seq.),?the?department?must?terminate?proceedings?on?notification?of?the?entry?of?final?judgment?unless?the?judgment?is?a?dismissal?entered?at?the?complainant’s?request?(??12980,?subd.?(a)),?and?(2)?that?no?remedy?shall?be?available?under?the?act?unless?the?complainant?waives?all?rights?or?claims?under?section?52?of?the?Civil?Codefn.?5before?receiving?a?remedy?(??12987,?subd.?(3)).

[3c]?Seeking?to?satisfy?the?substantive?test,?the?commission?argues?that?the?award?of?general?compensatory?damages?is?necessary?to?effectuate?the?purpose?of?the?act?to?provide?”effective?remedies”?that?will?eliminate?discriminatory?practices?(see???12920).?The?awarding?of?damages?for?the?pain?and?humiliation?of?race-based?discrimination,?the?commission?asserts,?helps?to?eliminate?such?practices?by?serving?as?a?deterrent?and,?in?addition,?serves?to?make?the?aggrieved?person?whole?by?compensating?for?the?denial?of?the?right?to?be?free?from?discrimination?in?housing?(citing?Memphis?Community?School?Dist.?v.?Stachura?(1986)?477?U.S.?299,?307?[91?L.Ed.2d?249,?258-259,?106?S.Ct.?2537];?Kentucky?Com’n?on?Human?Rights?v.?Fraser?(Ky.?1981)?625?S.W.2d?852).

That?compensatory?damages?serve?to?deter?discrimination?and?compensate?its?victim?for?the?psychic?harm?flowing?from?discrimination?is?not?in?dispute,?nor?is?it?the?issue.?Under?McHugh,?supra,?44?Cal.3d?348,?the?issue,?rather,?is?whether?the?award?of?substantial?emotional?distress?compensatory?damages?is?”reasonably?necessary”?to?accomplish?the?commission’s?legitimate?regulatory?[54?Cal.3d?259]?purposes?and?”merely?incidental”?to?its?primary?regulatory?purposes,?or?in?reality?transfers?to?the?agency?the?judicial?function?of?determining?traditional?common?law?claims.?(Id.?at?p.?374.)

In?answering?this?question,?we?find?it?helpful?to?trace?the?history?of?the?fair?housing?provisions?of?the?act.?In?1959?the?Legislature?enacted?three?separate?acts?directed?to?the?declaration?and?enforcement?of?civil?rights:?the?Fair?Employment?Practices?Act?(FEPA)?(former?Lab.?Code,???1410?et?seq.;?see?Stats.?1959,?ch.?121,???1,?pp.?1999-2005),?prohibiting?employment?discrimination;?the?Hawkins?Act?(former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35700?et?seq.,?enacted?by?Stats.?1959,?ch.?1681,???1,?pp.?4074-4077),?prohibiting?discrimination?in?publicly?assisted?housing?accommodations;?and?the?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Act?(Civ.?Code,????51-52,?added?by?Stats.?1959,?ch.?1866,????1-4,?p.?4424,?replacing?former?Civ.?Code,????51-54,?added?by?Stats.?1905,?ch.?413,????1-4,?pp.?553-554),?prohibiting?discrimination?in?business?establishments.fn.?6?(Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1394.)

Originally?the?Legislature?intended?only?employment?discrimination?to?be?handled?administratively;?discrimination?in?housing?was?to?be?handled?by?civil?suit?under?the?Hawkins?and?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Acts.?(Stearns?v.?Fair?Employment?Practice?Com.?(1971)?6?Cal.3d?205,?214?[98?Cal.Rptr.?467,?490?P.2d?1155]?(hereafter?Stearns);?see?Burks?v.?Poppy?Construction?Co.,?supra,?57?Cal.2d?463.)?However,?because?civil?damages?in?housing?violations?often?amounted?to?less?than?$1,000?(Stearns,?supra),?defendants?by?means?of?various?procedural?maneuvers?could?force?the?cost?of?litigation?above?the?plaintiff’s?expected?recovery.?To?remedy?this,?the?Legislature?in?1963?replaced?the?Hawkins?Act?with?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?(former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35700?et?seq.,?enacted?by?Stats.?1963,?ch.?1853,????2-4,?pp.?3823-3830),?which?extended?the?housing?discrimination?prohibitions?to?housing?generally?and?for?the?first?time?afforded?an?administrative?remedy?for?housing?discrimination.?(Stearns,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?at?p.?214;?see?Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1394;?see?also?56?Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.?332,?336?(1973).)fn.?7?[54?Cal.3d?260]

Although?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?retained?language?authorizing?the?award?of?”damages,”?it?transformed?the?statutory?minimum?recoverable?in?judicial?proceedings?under?the?Hawkins?Act?(see?fn.?6,?ante)?into?a?statutory?maximum?in?administrative?proceedings.?Thus,?the?Rumford?Act?initially?empowered?the?commission’s?predecessor,?the?Fair?Employment?Practice?Commission?(FEPC),?if?it?determined?that?specified?make-whole?remedies?were?not?available,?to?award?damages?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?$500.?(Stats.?1963,?ch.?1853,???2,?pp.?3828-3829.)fn.?8?In?1975?the?maximum?damage?award?was?increased?to?$1,000.?(Stats.?1975,?ch.?280,???1,?p.?701.)?In?1977?the?Rumford?Act?was?amended?to?specify?that?the?damages?payable?to?the?injured?party?were?”actual?and?punitive”?damages?and?for?the?first?time?to?describe?the?FEPC’s?authority?to?award?damages?in?housing?cases?as?cumulative,?rather?than?alternative.?(Stats.?1977,?ch.?1187,???10,?p.?3893;?Stats.?1977,?ch.?1188,???13.1,?pp.?3905-3906?[describing?the?FEPC’s?authority?as?”including,?but?not?limited?to,”?the?actions?specified].)?(See?Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1394?&?fn.?17.)?At?the?same?time,?the?Legislature?extended?to?victims?of?housing?discrimination?the?right?to?bring?a?civil?suit?under?the?act?on?receipt?from?the?department?of?a?right-to-sue?letter.?(Stats.?1977,?ch.?1188,???5.1,?p.?3902;?see???12980,?subd.?(d).)

In?1980?the?Legislature?combined?the?employment?and?housing?antidiscrimination?statutory?schemes?to?form?the?present?act,?with?enforcement?of?both?sections?of?the?act?vested?in?the?commission.?(Stats.?1980,?ch.?992,???4,?pp.?3140-3142;?see?Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1394.)?In?1981?section?12987?was?amended?to?remove?the?limit?on?the?amount?of?actual?damages,?while?retaining?a?$1,000?limit?on?punitive?damages.?(??12987,?subd.?(2),?as?amended?by?Stats.?1981,?ch.?899,???3,?p.?3424.)

As?this?history?illustrates,?from?1963,?when?the?FEPC?was?first?empowered?to?handle?housing?discrimination?complaints,?until?1982,?when?the?amendment?removing?the?cap?on?actual?damages?became?effective,?the?agency’s?primary?remedial?focus?was?on?cease?and?desist?orders?and?affirmative?equitable?or?corrective?”make-whole”?relief?that?would?provide?a?[54?Cal.3d?261]?victim?of?housing?discrimination?with?the?subject?housing?or?housing?substantially?similar?thereto.?The?award?of?damages?was?authorized?in?only?limited?and?minimal?amounts.?Indeed,?from?its?enactment?in?1963?until?its?amendment?in?1977,?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?authorized?the?FEPC?to?award?monetary?damages?only?if?the?specified?make-whole?remedies?were?not?available;?not?until?1977?did?the?award?of?even?minimal?damages?become?a?cumulative?remedy.

The?statutory?focus?on?corrective?measures?was?consistent?with?the?legislative?purpose?to?provide?a?streamlined?procedure?to?prevent?and?eliminate?housing?discrimination.?As?explained?in?Stearns,?supra:?”In?providing?an?administrative?remedy?for?housing?discrimination?the?Legislature?undertook?to?make?sure?that?individual?actions?did?not?become?burdened?with?procedural?technicalities.?[?]?To?achieve?this?end?the?FEPC?established?procedures?that?are?as?simple?and?uncomplicated?as?possible.?Complaints?are?drafted?by?laymen;?the?commission?informally?attempts?to?eliminate?discriminatory?practices?before?instituting?formal?accusations;?the?commission,?on?a?finding?of?discrimination,?may?fashion?remedies?both?to?correct?unique?cases?of?such?practice?as?well?as?to?curb?its?general?incidence.”?(6?Cal.3d?at?p.?214.)

[6]?(See?fn.?9.),?[3d]?Until?1982,?therefore,?the?award?of?damages-in?a?minimal?and?limited?amount-was?clearly?incidental?to?the?commission’s?primary?regulatory?purpose?of?correcting?and?preventing?housing?discrimination.fn.?9?The?legislative?history?does?not?disclose?the?reason?for?the?Legislature’s?amendment?of?the?act?to?eliminate?the?ceiling?on?actual?damages.?Since?the?amendment,?however,?the?dollar?amounts?of?the?damage?awards?have?steadily?risenfn.?10?and?may?be?expected?to?continue?to?do?so.?The?availability?of?unlimited?damages?thus?risks?converting?the?focus?of?the?commission’s?remedial?decision?from?one?of?fashioning?equitable?remedies?directed?to?making?the?injured?party?whole?in?the?context?of?housing,?to?one?of?compensating?him?or?her?for?the?psychic?harm?suffered.?As?the?commission?seeks?to?assess?and?evaluate?the?extent?of?the?complainant’s?injury,?what?once?was?an?alternative?or?incidental?adjunct?to?the?primary?relief?of?securing?the?same?or?comparable?housing,?has?assumed?an?independent?importance?[54?Cal.3d?262]?that?potentially?threatens?to?dominate?the?administrative?hearing.?(See,?e.g.,?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Aluminum?Precision?Products,?Inc.?(1988)?No.?88-05,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1988-1989,?CEB?4,?p.?11?[reciting?the?numerous?factors?the?commission?considers?in?awarding?compensatory?damages?and?the?relevant?expert?and?percipient?witnesses];?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Davis?Realty?Co.,?supra,?FEHC?Dec.?No.?87-02,?CEB?5?[five?pages?of?findings?devoted?to?the?emotional?impact?of?the?discrimination?on?the?four?complainants,?each?of?whom,?at?the?department’s?behest,?was?examined?by?a?psychologist].)

[7]?As?we?recognized?in?Youst?v.?Longo?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?64,?80?[233?Cal.Rptr.?294,?729?P.2d?728,?85?A.L.R.4th?1025]:?”[T]he?power?to?award?compensatory?and?punitive?tort?damages?to?an?injured?party?is?a?judicial?function.”?(Accord,?Curtis?v.?Loether,?supra,?415?U.S.?at?p.?196?[39?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?267-268];?see?also?Broward?County?v.?La?Rosa?(Fla.?1987)?505?So.2d?422,?423-424?[where?the?court?stated?that?it?could?not?”imagine?a?more?purely?judicial?function?than?a?contested?adjudicatory?proceeding?involving?disputed?facts?that?results?in?an?award?of?unliquidated?common?law?damages?for?personal?injuries?in?the?form?of?humiliation?and?embarrassment”].)

Although?in?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348,?we?rejected?a?rigid?rule?that?would?hold?administrative?agencies?incompetent?under?the?doctrine?of?judicial?powers?to?award?”damages”?of?any?kind?(id.?at?p.?358),?in?upholding?the?administrative?award?of?damages?we?repeatedly?distinguished?incidental,?”restitutive”?damages-permissible?under?the?judicial?powers?clause-from?the?award?of?unlimited,?nonquantifiable?compensatory?damages,?as?to?which?we?reserved?opinion.?(See,?e.g.,?id.?at?pp.?358,?359-?360,?375?&?fn.?38.)?In?Curtis?v.?Loether,?supra,?415?U.S.?189,?a?title?VIII?housing?discrimination?case,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?made?a?similar?distinction.?Referring?to?the?plaintiff’s?complaint,?the?Supreme?Court?stated,?”[T]he?relief?sought?here-actual?and?punitive?damages-is?the?traditional?form?of?relief?offered?in?the?courts?of?law.?[Fn.?omitted.]”?(415?U.S.?at?p.?196?[39?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?267].)?Backpay,?by?contrast-the?only?monetary?relief?afforded?under?title?VII?for?employment?discrimination-“is?an?integral?part?of?an?equitable?remedy,?a?form?of?restitution.”?(Id.?at?p.?197?[39?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?197]?[explaining?why?the?jury?trial?right?applies?to?a?title?VIII,?but?not?a?title?VII,?civil?suit].)fn.?11?[54?Cal.3d?263]

Although?in?McHugh?we?did?not?expressly?define?”restitutive?damages,”?both?in?context?and?common?parlance?the?meaning?of?the?phrase?seems?clear.?[8]?”Restitutive,”?relates?to?restitution:?”of?the?nature?of,?or?tending?to,?restitution.”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?2125,?col.?1.)”?”Restitution,”?in?turn,?is?”the?act?of?making?good,?or?of?giving?an?equivalent?for,?loss?….”?(Ibid.;?see?also?Black’s?Law?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?1313,?col.?2;?Curtis?v.?Loether,?supra,?415?U.S.?at?p.?197?[39?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?268].)?Applying?the?stated?guidelines,?in?McHugh?we?upheld?the?authority?of?a?local?rent?control?board?to?adjudicate?excess?rent?claims?and?to?order?repayment?of?the?excess?amounts?collected?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?375).?In?so?doing?we?disapproved?Jersey?Maid?Milk?Products?Co.?v.?Brock?(1939)?13?Cal.2d?620?[91?P.2d?577],?which?found?unconstitutional?a?statutory?provision?that?authorized?the?Director?of?Agriculture?to?resolve?wholesale?milk?price?disputes?and?to?award?milk?producers?such?amounts?as?he?determined?the?distributors?had?wrongfully?refused?to?pay.?(49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?356-358.)

By?implication,?therefore,?restitutive?damages?encompass,?at?a?minimum,?quantifiable?sums?that?one?private?party?subject?to?the?jurisdiction?of?the?agency?owes?to?another?party?who?claims?the?sum?was?obtained,?or?not?paid,?in?violation?of?a?law?or?regulation?the?agency?is?empowered?to?enforce.?To?the?foregoing?we?would?add,?as?here,?out-of-pocket?expenditures?incurred?or?economic?harm?suffered?by?one?party?in?consequence?of?another?party’s?violation?of?a?law?or?regulation?the?agency?is?empowered?to?enforce.?Restitutive?damages,?in?short,?are?akin?to?special?damages,?i.e.,?they?are?quantifiable?amounts?of?money?due?an?injured?private?party?from?another?party?to?compensate?for?the?pecuniary?loss?directly?resulting?from?the?second?party’s?violation?of?law.

[9]?General?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress,?by?contrast,?are?not?pecuniarily?measurable,?defy?a?fixed?rule?of?quantification,?and?are?awarded?without?proof?of?pecuniary?loss.?(Oleck,?supra,???46,?at?pp.?31-32;?22?Am.Jur.2d,?Damages,?supra,???28,?at?p.?56.)?As?the?commission?itself?has?recognized,?in?seeking?to?place?a?dollar?value?on?a?complainant’s?mental?and?emotional?injuries?there?is?little?in?legal?authority?to?guide?it,?for?the?reason?that?”[i]t?has?traditionally?been?left?to?the?trier?of?fact?to?assess?the?degree?of?harm?suffered?and?to?fix?a?monetary?amount?as?just?compensation?therefor.?[Citation.]”?(Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Ambylou?Enterprises?(1982)?No.?82-06,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1982-1983,?CEB?3,?p.?11?[employment?discrimination];?see?Peralta,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?56;?see?generally?Schwemm,?Compensatory?Damages?in?Federal?Fair?Housing?Cases?(1981)?16?Harv.?C.R.-C.L.?L.Rev.?83?[discussing?the?difficulty?of?evaluating?intangible?injuries?in?housing?discrimination?cases]?[hereafter?Schwemm].)?[54?Cal.3d?264]

Contrasting?general?compensatory?damages?with?the?equitable?remedy?of?restitution,?the?court?in?Dean?Witter?Reynolds,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1989)?211?Cal.App.3d?758,?774?[259?Cal.Rptr.?789],?made?the?following?apt?observation?in?concluding?that?general?compensatory?damages?are?not?available?under?the?unfair?competition?statute?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???17200?et?seq.):?”The?exclusion?of?claims?for?compensatory?damages?is?…?consistent?with?the?overarching?legislative?concern?to?provide?a?streamlined?procedure?for?the?prevention?of?ongoing?or?threatened?acts?of?unfair?competition.?To?permit?individual?claims?for?compensatory?damages?to?be?pursued?as?part?of?such?a?procedure?would?tend?to?thwart?this?objective?by?requiring?the?court?to?deal?with?a?variety?of?damage?issues?of?a?higher?order?of?complexity.”?(Italics?in?original.)

[3e]?The?same,?we?believe,?holds?true?for?the?administrative?adjudication?of?nonquantifiable?emotional?distress?damages?in?housing?discrimination?cases.?As?shown,?the?purpose?of?the?act?was?to?provide?a?streamlined?and?economic?procedure?for?preventing?and?redressing?discrimination?in?housing?as?an?alternative?to?the?more?cumbersome?and?costly?procedure?of?a?civil?suit.?The?availability?of?alternate?civil?remedies?underscores?that?the?primary?regulatory?purpose?of?the?act?is?to?prevent?discrimination?in?housing?before?it?happens?and,?when?it?does?occur,?to?offer?a?streamlined?and?economical?administrative?procedure?to?make?its?victim?whole?in?the?context?of?the?housing?(cf.?Dyna-?Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1387).?The?award?of?unlimited?general?compensatory?damages?is?neither?necessary?to?this?purpose?nor?merely?incidental?thereto;?its?effect,?rather,?is?to?shift?the?remedial?focus?of?the?administrative?hearing?from?affirmative?actions?designed?to?redress?the?particular?instance?of?unlawful?housing?discrimination?and?prevent?its?recurrence,?to?compensating?the?injured?party?not?just?for?the?tangible?detriment?to?his?or?her?housing?situation,?but?for?the?intangible?and?nonquantifiable?injury?to?his?or?her?psyche?suffered?as?a?result?of?the?respondent’s?unlawful?acts,?in?the?manner?of?a?traditional?private?tort?action?in?a?court?of?law.?(Cf.?Peralta,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?49;?see?also?Schwemm,?supra,?16?Harv.?C.R.-C.L.?L.Rev.?at?pp.?89-90?[federal?housing?discrimination?claims?sound?in?tort?and?damage?awards?should?be?governed?by?compensation?principles?applicable?to?tort?law].)?As?we?stated?in?Peralta,?supra,?”[t]his?effect,?we?believe,?is?beyond?the?scope?of?the?Legislature’s?intended?purpose?in?enacting?the?FEHA?to?prevent?and?eliminate?discrimination?….”?(52?Cal.3d?at?p.?49.)

The?commission,?however,?argues?that?a?distinction?exists?between?the?performance?of?a?judicial?function,?on?the?one?hand,?and?the?exercise?of?judicial?power,?on?the?other,?and?that?the?state?Constitution?does?not?preclude?the?vesting?of?”court-like”?functions?in?an?administrative?agency,?so?long?as?[54?Cal.3d?265]?the?judicial?power?of?review?remains?in?the?courts.?As?a?general?proposition,?we?accepted?this?argument?in?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pages?372-373.?From?this,?however,?the?commission?argues?that?because?its?award?of?general?compensatory?damages?is?not?a?final?judgment,?but?is?enforceable?only?in?the?superior?court?and?subject?to?judicial?review?by?way?of?administrative?mandamus?(???11523,?12987;?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1094.5;?see?also???12981,?subd.?(d)),?its?award?is?not?an?unconstitutional?exercise?of?judicial?power.?In?effect,?the?commission?would?have?us?find?that?satisfaction?of?the?procedural?prong?of?the?McHugh?standard-the?”principle?of?check”?(see?49?Cal.3d?at?pp.?374,?376)-is?sufficient?to?meet?a?judicial?powers?challenge?to?an?agency’s?administrative?adjudications.

In?support?of?its?argument,?the?commission?cites?numerous?out-of-state?cases?that?hold?the?administrative?award?of?unlimited?nonquantifiable?damages?is?permissible?when,?as?here,?due?process?procedural?rights?have?been?protected,?prohibited?conduct?has?been?well?defined?by?the?governing?statute,?and?judicial?review?is?available.?(E.g.,?Kentucky?Com’n?on?Human?Rights?v.?Fraser,?supra,?625?S.W.2d?852;?Plasti-Line,?Inc.?v.?Human?Rights?Com’n?(Tenn.?1988)?746?S.W.2d?691.)?In?many?of?the?cited?cases,?however,?the?administrative?award?of?unlimited?damages?for?emotional?distress?type?injuries?was?not?at?issue.?(See,?e.g.,?Percy?Kent?Bag?Co.?v.?Missouri?Com’n,?(Mo.?1982)?632?S.W.2d?480,?483-485?[backpay];?General?Drivers?&?Helpers?U.?v.?Wisconsin?Emp.?Rel.?Bd.?(1963)?21?Wis.2d?242?[124?N.W.2d?123]?[vacation?pay];?cf.?Zahorian?v.?Russell?Fitt?Real?Estate?Agency?(1973)?62?N.J.?399?[301?A.2d?754,?761,?61?A.L.R.3d?927]?[“minor?or?incidental”?awards,?here?$750].)?In?McHugh,?moreover,?we?expressly?rejected?the?proposition?that?”an?administrative?agency?may?exercise?all?manner?of?’judicial-like’?power?on?the?simple?condition?that?judicial?review?of?the?administrative?decision?remains?available.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?364.)?Although?we?recognized?that?sister?states’?decisions?have?occasionally?accorded?little?consideration?to?the?”substantive?limitations”?principle?discussed?above?(id.?at?p.?371),?we?adhered?to?the?guiding?principles?of?substantive?as?well?as?procedural?limitations?on?the?remedial?power?of?administrative?agencies?(id.?at?p.?374).

In?sum,?we?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?the?commission’s?award?of?unlimited?general?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress?was?in?violation?of?the?judicial?powers?clause.fn.?12?[54?Cal.3d?266] [10]?The?commission’s?award,?by?contrast,?of?damages?for?Cannon’s?out-of-pocket?expenditures?for?increased?rent?and?utilities?clearly?satisfies?the?McHugh?standard,?as?respondents?acknowledge.?The?substantive?limitations?prong?is?satisfied?because?(1)?the?damages?are?authorized?by?the?statutory?language?permitting?the?award?of?actual?damages?(??12987);?(2)?in?providing?recompense?for?sums?actually?expended?as?a?result?of?the?unlawful?discrimination,?the?damages?are?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?the?commission’s?statutory?purpose?of?providing?effective?remedies?to?eliminate?discriminatory?practices?(??12920);?and?(3)?because?they?are?tangible?and?readily?quantifiable,?the?damages?remain?incidental?to?the?commission’s?primary?regulatory?purposes?of?preventing?and?eliminating?housing?discrimination?and?making?its?victim?whole?in?the?context?of?housing.?The?procedural?prong,?in?turn,?is?met?because?the?award?may?be?reviewed?by?petition?for?a?writ?of?mandamus?(???11523,?12987)?and?is?enforceable?only?by?judgment?and?order?of?the?court?(??12981,?subd.?(d)).

[11a]?Although?the?Court?of?Appeal?construed?the?statute?as?authorizing?the?award?of?unlimited?compensatory?damages,?and?held?that?the?$50,000?compensatory?damages?award?in?this?case?was?unconstitutional,?it?did?not?invalidate?the?damages?provision?of?the?statute?in?its?entirety;?rather,?the?court?determined?that?the?general?damages?award?for?emotional?distress?must?be?stricken,?leaving?in?effect?the?special?damages?award?for?out-of-pocket?loss.?Respondents?argue?that?in?so?doing?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?effect?rewrote?the?statute,?which?it?is?not?empowered?to?do?(citing?Spiritual?Psychic?Science?Church?v.?City?of?Azusa?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?501,?520?[217?Cal.Rptr.?225,?703?P.2d?1119]).?We?disagree.?Although?the?statutory?phrase?”actual?damages”?is?indivisible,?it?embodies?a?dual?concept:?that?of?nonquantifiable?compensatory?damages?and?that?of?pecuniarily?measurable?out-of-pocket?expenditures;?together?these?two?types?of?damages?make?up?”actual?damages”?(See?Oleck,?supra,???12,?at?pp.?22-23.)?The?statute?thus?is?one?where?a?single?section?contains?language?susceptible?of?applications,?part?of?which-i.e.,?the?award?of?general?compensatory?damages-is?invalid.?(See?2?Sutherland,?Statutory?Construction?(4th?ed.?1986)???44.18,?p.?533.)?In?such?a?case,?”the?statute?should?be?upheld?if,?after?deletion?of?the?invalid?[application],?a?workable?statute?remains.”?(Ibid.)?This?type?of?severability,?Sutherland?explains,?is?permissible?in?jurisdictions?which?permit?limitation?of?an?entire?act?to?its?valid?applications.?”If?a?court?will?limit?an?entire?act?to?its?valid?applications,?a?fortiori?it?will?limit?a?small?part?of?the?statute?to?its?valid?applications.?[Fn.?omitted.]”?(Id.?at?p.?534.)?[54?Cal.3d?267]

California?is?such?a?jurisdiction.?(E.g.,?Welton?v.?City?of?Los?Angeles?(1976)?18?Cal.3d?497,?505-506?[134?Cal.Rptr.?668,?556?P.2d?1119];?see?San?Francisco?Unified?School?Dist.?v.?Johnson?(1971)3?Cal.3d?937,?955-956?[92?Cal.Rptr.?309,?479?P.2d?669].)?Moreover,?the?severability?clause?of?the?act?expressly?provides?that?if?any?clause?or?part?is?adjudged?invalid?in?its?application,?such?judgment?shall?not?invalidate?its?application?to?other?circumstances,?but?shall?be?confined?to?the?circumstances?involved.?(??12996.)fn.?13?Although?the?severability?provision?refers?only?to?the?employment?part?of?the?act,?we?take?this?not?as?an?implied?expression?of?legislative?intent?to?exclude?the?housing?provisions,?but?as?merely?an?oversight?when?the?provisions?of?the?FEPA?(former?Lab.?Code,???1410?et?seq.;?see?Stats.?1959,?ch.?121,???1,?p.?1999?et?seq.),?including?its?severability?clause?(former?Lab.?Code,???1432;?Stats.?1959,?ch.?121,???1,?p.?2005),?were?combined?with?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?(former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35700?et?seq.;?Stats.?1963,?ch.?1853,???2,?p.?3823?et?seq.)?and?its?severability?clause?(Stats.?1963,?ch.?1853,???5,?p.?3830)?to?form?the?act.

[12]?A?severability?clause,?although?not?conclusive,?”?’?”normally?calls?for?sustaining?the?valid?part?of?the?enactment?….?The?final?determination?depends?on?whether?’the?remainder?…?is?complete?in?itself?and?would?have?been?adopted?by?the?legislative?body?had?the?latter?foreseen?the?partial?invalidation?of?the?statute’?[citation]?….”?’?”?(Metromedia,?Inc.?v.?City?of?San?Diego?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?180,?190?[185?Cal.Rptr.?260,?649?P.2d?902].)?[11b]?These?criteria?are?clearly?met?in?the?instant?case:?the?valid?application?of?the?damages?provision?is?complete?in?itself,?and?the?Legislature,?we?have?no?doubt,?would?have?authorized?the?commission?to?award?only?restitutive?damages?had?it?foreseen?the?invalidity?of?the?provision?for?the?award?of?unlimited?compensatory?damages.

We?therefore?hold?that?section?12987?is?valid?insofar?as?it?authorizes?the?commission?to?award?quantifiable?out-of-pocket?restitutive?damages?and?is?invalid?under?the?judicial?powers?clause?insofar?as?it?authorizes?the?award?of?nonquantifiable?general?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress?and?other?intangible?injury.

1. The?Award?of?Punitive?Damages

The?commission,?one?commissioner?dissenting,?awarded?Cannon?$40,635?in?punitive?damages,?or?the?statutory?maximum?of?$1,000?for?each?discriminatory?[54?Cal.3d?268]?act?as?determined?by?the?commission,?adjusted?in?accordance?with?the?consumer?price?index?base?year?of?1982.?The?superior?court?reduced?the?punitive?damage?award?to?the?statutory?limit?of?$1,000?as?adjusted,?ruling?that?the?statute?prohibits?a?”course?of?conduct.”?The?Court?of?Appeal?reversed.?The?court?held?that?the?statute?authorizes?a?separate?punitive?damage?award?for?each?discriminatory?act?against?an?individual?complainant,?equated?in?this?case?to?every?rental?by?Manor?to?a?non-Black?applicant?who?applied?after?Cannon?while?he?remained?on?the?waiting?list-or?some?35?violations?as?found?by?the?commission.

Section?12987,?as?amended?in?1981,?authorizes?the?commission,?on?finding?a?respondent?”has?engaged?in?any?unlawful?practice?as?defined?in?this?part,”?to?order?”[t]he?payment?of?punitive?damages?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?one?thousand?dollars”?as?adjusted?in?accordance?with?the?consumer?price?index.?(Stats.?1981,?ch.?899,???3,?p.?3424.)?[13]?In?determining?the?meaning?of?the?section,?we?are?guided?by?the?following?established?principles:?”[O]ur?first?task?in?construing?a?statute?is?to?ascertain?the?intent?of?the?Legislature?so?as?to?effectuate?the?purpose?of?the?law.?In?determining?such?intent,?a?court?must?look?first?to?the?words?of?the?statute?themselves,?giving?to?the?language?its?usual,?ordinary?import?….?The?words?of?the?statute?must?be?construed?in?context,?keeping?in?mind?the?statutory?purpose,?and?statutes?or?statutory?sections?relating?to?the?same?subject?must?be?harmonized,?both?internally?and?with?each?other,?to?the?extent?possible.?[Citations.]?Where?uncertainty?exists?consideration?should?be?given?to?the?consequences?that?will?flow?from?a?particular?interpretation.?[Citation.]?Both?the?legislative?history?of?the?statute?and?the?wider?historical?circumstances?of?its?enactment?may?be?considered?in?ascertaining?the?legislative?intent.?[Citation.]?A?statute?should?be?construed?whenever?possible?so?as?to?preserve?its?constitutionality.?[Citations.]”?(Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1386-1387.)

[14a]?We?turn,?then,?to?the?statutory?language.?The?statute?declares?the?”practice?of?discrimination?because?of?race,?color,”?and?other?specified?grounds?to?be?against?public?policy?(??12920,?par.?3)?and?states?the?purposes?of?the?act?to?be?the?prevention?and?elimination?of?such?discriminatory?practices?(???12920,?par.?4,?12980,?par.?1).?Section?12955?specifies?the?”unlawful?practices”?that?are?in?violation?of?the?act.?Those?applicable?to?this?case?include?section?12955,?subdivision?(a),?”For?the?owner?of?any?housing?accommodation?to?discriminate?against?any?person?because?of?the?race?…?of?such?person,”?and?subdivision?(d),?”For?any?person?subject?to?the?provisions?of?Section?51?of?the?Civil?Code?[guaranteeing?equal?accommodations?in?business?establishments],?as?that?section?applies?to?housing?accommodations,?…?to?discriminate?against?any?person?because?of?race?….”?[54?Cal.3d?269]?”Discrimination”?is?defined?in?section?12927,?subdivision?(c)?as?including?a?refusal?to?rent,?and?the?representation,?contrary?to?fact,?that?a?housing?accommodation?is?not?available.?Upon?a?finding?of?any?”unlawful?practice,”?the?commission,?as?seen,?may?order?the?payment?of?$1,000?in?punitive?damages.?(??12987,?subd.?(2).)

Although?the?statute?lists?unlawful?practices,?nowhere?does?it?define?”practice.”?The?term,?however,?is?unambiguous.?As?both?lay?and?legal?dictionaries?state,?the?term?”practice”?means?a?course?of?conduct,?i.e.,?”to?do?or?perform?often,?customarily,?or?habitually;?to?make?a?practice?of”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?1937,?col.?3);?”[r]epeated?or?customary?action;?habitual?performance;?a?succession?of?acts?of?similar?kind;?custom;?usage”?(Black’s?Law?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?1172,?col.?1).?Given?this?plain?meaning?of?the?term,?we?conclude?that?in?refusing?to?rent?to?Cannon?on?the?basis?of?race,?respondents?committed?a?single?”unlawful?practice”?within?the?meaning?of?the?statute.

Asserting?the?remedial?section?of?the?act?was?patterned?after?federal?law,?the?commission?maintains?we?should?adopt?the?federal?definition?of?”discriminatory?housing?practice”?to?mean?”an?act”?that?is?unlawful?under?the?federal?law.?(42?U.S.C.???3602(f).)?But?the?federal?definition?merely?applies?to?permit?any?person?aggrieved?by?a?discriminatory?practice?(or?act)?to?file?a?complaint?(id.,???3610(a));?before?the?statute’s?amendment?in?1988?(see?fn.?11,?ante),?if?the?matter?was?not?settled?and?a?civil?action?ensued,?the?court?was?authorized?to?award?the?plaintiff?no?more?than?$1,000?in?punitive?damages,?regardless?of?the?number?of?discriminatory?acts?perpetrated?by?the?respondent.?(42?U.S.C.,?former???3612(c);?see?Fountila?v.?Carter?(9th?Cir.?1978)?571?F.2d?487,?494;?Steele?v.?Title?Realty?Company,?supra,?478?F.2d?380,?384.)?Although?the?1988?amendments?revised?the?remedy?provision,?allowing?administrative?as?well?as?judicial?relief?and?increasing?the?penalties?allowed,?the?federal?statute?still?contemplates?that?only?one?penalty?will?be?imposed?on?the?respondent?regardless?of?the?number?of?”acts?constituting?the?discriminatory?housing?practice?that?is?the?object?of?the?charge.”?(42?U.S.C.???3612(g)(3).)

California?law?is?the?same.?Our?conclusion?that?respondents?are?liable?for?only?one?punitive?damages?award?does?not?mean?that?a?single?”act”?of?discrimination?is?not?a?violation?of?the?act?or?cannot?support?an?accusation?and?finding?of?an?”unlawful?practice.”?The?case?law?is?to?the?contrary.?(See?Stearns,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?205,?212-213;?Hess?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.,?supra,?138?Cal.App.3d?232;?see?also???12955,?subd.?(g)?[equating?unlawful?”acts”?and?”practices”].)?In?every?case?the?issue?simply?is?whether?the?act?or?acts?complained?of?suffice?to?show?a?discriminatory?practice?in?[54?Cal.3d?270]?violation?of?the?statute.?(See,?e.g.,?Stearns,?supra,?at?p.?212;?Hess,?supra,?at?pp.?234-235;?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Davis?Realty?Co.,?supra,?FEHC?Dec.?No.?87-02,?CEB?5,?at?pp.?17-20].)?We?merely?hold?that,?for?the?purposes?of?the?authorized?remedies,?multiple?acts?of?discrimination?against?the?same?complainant?on?the?same?unlawful?basis?establish?only?one?unlawful?practice.

Thus,?in?the?instant?case,?Indridson’s?refusal?to?rent?to?Cannon?because?of?his?race?constituted?one?violation?of?the?act?or?one?”unlawful?practice.”?(??12955,?subd.?(a).)?Each?discriminatory?act?in?furtherance?of?the?refusal?to?rent?serves?merely?as?proof?of?the?alleged?practice.?(See?Stearns,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?at?p.?212;?Hess?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.,?supra,?138?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?234-?235.)?Indeed,?the?commission?in?its?findings?stated?that?”The?most?powerful?evidence?of?Indridson’s?discriminatory?treatment?of?Cannon?is?her?persistent?rental?of?apartments?for?which?Cannon?was?eligible?to?later,?non-Black?applicants.”?(Italics?added.)?Had?Indridson,?as?the?department?alleged,?also?discriminated?against?Cannon?on?grounds?of?marital?status?(i.e.,?because?he?was?single),?such?discrimination?would?have?constituted?a?separate?violation?of?the?act?(??12955,?subd.?(a)),?permitting?a?separate?award?of?punitive?damages.?(Cf.?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Atlantic?North?Apartments?(1983)?No.?83-12,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1982-1983,?CEB?13,?pp.?4,?11?[two?violations];?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Davis?Realty?Co.,?supra,?FEHC?Dec.?No.?87-02,?CEB?5,?pp.?17,?20?[three?violations];?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Green?(1986)?No.?86-07,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1986-1987,?CEB?1,?pp.?8-11?[six?violations].)?Similarly,?had?respondents?violated?any?of?the?other?provisions?of?section?12955,?e.g.,?advertising?a?preference?for?Caucasian?tenants?(??12955,?subd.?(c)),?this?practice?would?likewise?justify?a?separate?punitive?damages?award.

Our?adherence?to?the?plain?meaning?of?the?statute?is?consistent?with?the?other?tenets?of?statutory?construction?previously?recited.?As?discussed?in?part?II.A.?of?this?opinion?(ante,?at?pp.?259-262),?the?history?of?the?housing?provisions?of?the?act?discloses?a?legislative?intent?to?provide?an?inexpensive,?streamlined?remedy,?providing?conciliation?and?corrective,?make-whole?relief,?as?an?alternative?to?the?more?cumbersome?and?expensive?procedures?of?a?civil?suit.?Pursuant?to?the?statutory?scheme,?the?department?from?the?very?outset?seeks?cooperative?resolution?of?the?complaint.?(See????12980,?subds.?(a),?(c),?12963.7.)?Only?if?that?fails?or?is?inappropriate,?does?a?hearing?ensue.?(??12981,?subds.?(a),?(b).)?If,?after?hearing,?the?commission?finds?a?violation?of?the?act,?it?is?authorized?to?order?various?kinds?of?primarily?equitable?and?make-whole?relief:?e.g.,?a?cease?and?desist?order,?the?provision?of?the?same?or?like?housing,?if?available?(or?the?provision?of?financing?if?financial?assistance?was?denied),?the?payment?of?out-of-pocket?expenses,?and?”[a]ffirmative?or?[54?Cal.3d?271]?prospective?relief.”?(??12987,?subds.?(1),?(2),?(3).)?Whereas?the?award?of?limited?punitive?damages?is?in?keeping?with?the?overall?remedial?thrust?of?the?act,?the?award?of?substantial?cumulative?punitive?damages,?as?in?this?case,?would?be?disproportionately?punitive?and?sharply?at?odds?therewith.?[15]?Unlike?the?primarily?equitable?and?corrective?remedies?authorized?by?section?12987,?”[p]unitive?damages?…?are?neither?equitable?nor?corrective;?punitive?damages?serve?but?one?purpose-to?punish?and?through?punishment,?to?deter.”?(Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1387.)

[16]?”The?general?rule?is?that?'[w]here?the?enabling?statute?is?essentially?remedial,?and?does?not?carry?a?penal?program?declaring?certain?practices?to?be?crimes?or?provide?penalties?or?fines?in?vindication?of?public?rights,?an?agency?does?not?have?discretion?to?devise?punitive?measures?such?as?the?prescription?of?penalties?or?fines.’?”?(Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1388.)?[14b]?Here,?although?the?enabling?statute?authorizes?the?award?of?limited?punitive?damages,?the?statute?is?essentially?remedial.?To?construe?it,?as?the?commission?urges,?as?permitting?unlimited?multiple?cumulative?awards?of?punitive?damages,?would?be?to?alter?fundamentally?the?nature?of?the?administrative?remedy.?”Uniformly,?we?have?looked?with?disfavor?on?ever-mounting?penalties?and?have?narrowly?construed?the?statutes?which?either?require?or?permit?them.”?(Hale?v.?Morgan,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?388,?401.)

[17]?Finally,?a?statute?is?to?be?construed?whenever?possible?so?as?to?preserve?its?constitutionality.?(Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1387?and?cases?cited.)?[14c]?Under?the?commission’s?view,?a?question?would?arise?whether?the?administrative?award?of?substantial?punitive?damages?by?a?nonconstitutional?agency,?as?here,?would?violate?the?judicial?powers?clause.?Although?in?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348,?we?expressly?noted?we?were?not?considering?the?constitutional?propriety?of?”relatively?minor?’punitive?damages’?under?statutory?schemes?that?expressly?authorize?such?damages,?and?set?a?cap?on?such?awards,”?citing?section?12987?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?378?&?fn.?46),?the?decision?nevertheless?is?significant?for?present?purposes.?First,?it?characterizes?section?12987?as?imposing?”relatively?minor”?punitive?damages?and?setting?a?”cap”?on?such?damages.?The?strong?implication?is?that?a?statute?authorizing?the?administrative?award?of?major?or?substantial?punitive?damages,?with?no?cap?on?the?cumulative?amount,?would?be?constitutionally?suspect.?Second,?pursuant?to?the?principles?set?forth?in?McHugh?and?discussed?in?part?II.A.?of?this?opinion?(ante,?at?p.?256),?we?would?have?difficulty?in?characterizing?a?several?thousand?dollar?punitive?damages?award?as?”merely?incidental”?relief,?necessary?to?effectuate?the?remedial?purposes?of?the?statute.?Further,?like?the?treble?damages?provision?we?struck?in?McHugh,?[54?Cal.3d?272]?the?power?to?award?multiple,?cumulative?punitive?damages?for?multiple?acts?of?discrimination?comprising?a?single?course?of?conduct?against?a?single?individual?”poses?a?risk?of?producing?arbitrary,?disproportionate?results?that?magnify,?beyond?acceptable?risks,?the?possibility?of?arbitrariness?inherent?in?any?scheme?of?administrative?adjudication.”?(49?Cal.3d?at?p.?379.)

The?commission?urges?that?cumulative?punitive?damages?effectuate?the?purpose?of?the?law?by?serving?to?deter?repeated?acts?of?discrimination.?We?do?not?dispute?the?deterrent?effect?of?punitive?damages.?(See?Dyna-Med,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?1389.)?In?light,?however,?of?the?considerations?discussed?above,?this?is?insufficient?basis?to?construe?the?statute?as?authorizing?such?awards.

In?People?v.?Superior?Court?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?283?[107?Cal.Rptr.?192,?507?P.2d?1400,?55?A.L.R.3d?191],?this?court?reached?a?similar?conclusion?in?construing?consumer?protection?legislation?prohibiting?false?and?misleading?advertising?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???17500?et?seq.).?There,?the?Attorney?General?filed?a?civil?action?against?several?door-to-door?encyclopedia?salesmen.?The?complaint?alleged?that?each?defendant?made?various?specified?misrepresentations?to?each?customer?solicited,?in?violation?of?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?17500.fn.?14?Pursuant?to?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?17536,fn.?15?the?complaint?sought?an?award?of?$2,500?in?civil?penalties?for?each?”act”?of?false?or?misleading?advertising.?(9?Cal.3d?at?p.?286.)?This?court?held?that?the?amount?of?civil?penalties?that?could?be?imposed?was?dependent?upon?the?number?of?”violations”?a?defendant?committed.?(Id.?at?p.?288.)?The?Attorney?General,?in?an?argument?strikingly?similar?to?the?argument?the?commission?makes?here,?maintained?that?each?misrepresentation?by?a?defendant?constituted?a?separate?violation?subject?to?a?separate?penalty.?Rejecting?the?argument,?we?held?that?”the?number?of?violations?is?to?be?determined?by?the?number?of?persons?to?whom?the?misrepresentations?were?made,?and?not?by?the?number?of?separately?identifiable?misrepresentations?involved.?Thus,?regardless?of?how?many?misrepresentations?were?allegedly?made?to?any?one?potential?customer,?the?penalty?may?not?exceed?$2,500?for?each?customer?solicited?by?a?defendant.”?(Id.?at?p.?289.)?[54?Cal.3d?273]

In?reaching?this?conclusion,?we?recognized?that?the?intent?of?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?17536?was?”to?strengthen?the?hand?of?the?Attorney?General?in?seeking?redress?for?violations?of?[Business?and?Professions?Code]?section?17500,”?since?the?injunction?and?misdemeanor?provisions?of?the?old?law?had?proven?inadequate?to?stop?”false?advertising?rackets.”?(People?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?9?Cal.3d?at?pp.?288-289?&?fn.?3.)?Nevertheless,?”it?is?unreasonable,”?we?reasoned,?”to?assume?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?impose?a?penalty?of?this?magnitude?for?the?solicitation?of?one?potential?customer.”?(Id.?at?p.?289.)

We?are?not?unmindful?of?the?substantial?deleterious?effects?of?housing?discrimination,?not?only?on?the?individual?victim,?but?on?society?at?large.?Without?in?any?way?diminishing?the?gravity?of?such?discrimination?or?minimizing?the?particularly?egregious?violations?of?law?that?occurred?in?this?case,?we?nevertheless?believe?that?here,?as?in?People?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?9?Cal.3d?283,?it?would?be?unreasonable?to?assume?that?the?Legislature,?in?an?essentially?remedial?statute,?intended?to?authorize?the?commission?to?impose?substantial?multiple,?cumulative?punitive?damage?awards?for?a?single?course?of?discriminatory?conduct?against?one?complainant.

Conclusion

The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed?in?part?and?affirmed?in?part.?That?part?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?judgment?relating?to?punitive?damages?is?reversed.?That?part?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?judgment?relating?to?emotional?distress?compensatory?damages?is?modified?with?directions?to?order?the?superior?court?to?modify?its?writ?to?strike?the?award?of?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distressfn.?14?and,?as?modified,?is?affirmed.

Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?and?Baxter,?J.,?concurred.

KENNARD,?J.

I?dissent.

Through?the?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Actfn.?1?(FEHA?or?the?Act),?this?state?has?made?a?firm?commitment?to?eradicate?housing?discrimination?on?the?basis?of?race,?color,?religion,?sex,?marital?status,?national?origin,?or?ancestry.?(??12920.)?To?achieve?this?difficult?and?worthy?goal,?our?statutory?scheme?authorizes?the?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?Commission?(Commission),?upon?proof?of?unlawful?housing?discrimination?forbidden?by?the?Act,?to?[54?Cal.3d?274]?award?damages?to?the?victims?of?that?discrimination.?The?damages?the?Commission?may?award?include?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?suffering,?and?punitive?damages?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?$1,000?(plus?an?inflation?adjustment)?for?any?practice?that?violates?the?Act.

The?majority?holds?that?administrative?awards?of?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?suffering?violate?our?state?Constitution’s?judicial?powers?clause,?and?that?the?Act?itself?limits?administrative?awards?of?punitive?damages?to?$1,000?from?each?violator?of?the?Act?for?multiple?acts?of?discrimination?of?the?same?type?against?a?single?victim.?These?holdings,?as?I?shall?explain,?are?neither?compelled?by?our?state?Constitution?nor?faithful?to?the?language?or?purpose?of?the?Act.?Worse?yet,?they?will?so?impair?the?Act’s?administrative?enforcement?as?to?prevent?achievement?of?its?paramount?goal.

The?significance?of?these?holdings?can?best?be?appreciated?in?the?context?of?the?facts?of?this?case.?In?1979,?Robert?Cannon,?a?55-year-old?African-?American,?applied?to?rent?an?apartment?at?Walnut?Creek?Manor,?a?418-unit?apartment?complex?for?persons?55?years?and?older,?in?part?because?he?had?friends?who?lived?there.?Because?of?his?race,?Cannon?remained?on?the?waiting?list?for?two?and?one-half?years.

In?1982,?Cannon?met?a?non-African-American?who,?after?only?a?few?months?on?the?waiting?list,?had?rented?an?apartment?at?Walnut?Creek?Manor.?Cannon?then?realized?that?his?race?was?the?reason?no?apartment?had?been?offered?him,?and?filed?a?FEHA?complaint.?Investigation?uncovered?that?Walnut?Creek?Manor?had?rented?35?apartments?to?non-African-Americans?who?applied?after?Cannon.

At?the?administrative?hearing,?Cannon?testified?that?as?the?result?of?Walnut?Creek?Manor’s?refusal?to?rent?to?him,?he?had?suffered?humiliation?and?embarrassment.?The?Commission?awarded?Cannon?$50,000?in?compensatory?damages?for?emotional?distress?and?$35,000?in?punitive?damages?($1,000?for?each?of?the?35?violations?of?the?Act)?plus?an?adjustment?for?inflation.?The?majority?eliminates?the?award?for?emotional?distress?and?reduces?the?punitive?damage?award?to?slightly?more?than?$1,000.?I?disagree?with?this?result.

The?first?part?of?this?dissenting?opinion?shows?that?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?the?state?Constitution?does?not?prevent?the?Commission?from?awarding?damages?for?emotional?distress.?The?second?part?explains?that?the?Legislature?has?authorized?the?Commission?to?award?punitive?damages?up?to?[54?Cal.3d?275]?the?statutory?maximum?of?$1,000?for?each?separate?act?of?housing?discrimination.?I.?The?Judicial?Powers?Clause?Does?Not?Preclude?the?Commission?From?Awarding?Damages?for?Emotional?Distress?Caused?by?Housing?Discrimination

FEHA,?like?the?federal?Fair?Housing?Act?(42?U.S.C.????3601-3619),?relies?primarily?on?the?enforcement?efforts?of?those?who?have?been?victimized?by?housing?discrimination.?But?experience?has?taught?two?important?lessons?about?private?enforcement?in?this?field.?First,?private?enforcement?through?the?courts?will?never?by?itself?eliminate?housing?discrimination?because?those?discriminated?against?are?too?often?unable?or?unwilling?to?undertake?the?costly?and?burdensome?task?of?prosecuting?a?civil?lawsuit.?For?this?reason,?effective?administrative?remedies?are?essential?to?continued?private?enforcement?of?the?Act.?Second,?housing?discrimination?causes?emotional?distress?that?is?often?severe,?but?it?rarely?causes?significant?out-of-pocket?losses.fn.?2?Therefore,?an?administrative?remedy?that?compensates?only?for?financial?losses,?and?not?for?emotional?distress,?will?not?provide?the?incentive?that?discrimination?victims?need?to?vigorously?prosecute?their?administrative?remedies.

The?inescapable?conclusion?to?be?drawn?is?that?a?system?that?relies?on?private?enforcement,?yet?bars?administrative?tribunals?from?compensating?housing?discrimination?victims?for?their?emotional?distress,?cannot?eliminate?housing?discrimination.?Such?a?system?is?doomed?to?fail.?For?these?reasons,?administrative?awards?of?compensatory?damages?for?pain?and?suffering?are?[54?Cal.3d?276]?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?FEHA’s?primary?purpose?of?eliminating?housing?discrimination?and?thus?do?not?violate?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?the?California?Constitution?(art.?VI,???1).?A.?FEHA?Authorizes?the?Commission?to?Award?Emotional?Distress?Damages?to?the?Victims?of?Housing?Discrimination

Segregated?housing?patterns,?which?frequently?confine?minority?groups?to?substandard?housing,?persist?in?many?areas?in?California?and?throughout?the?nation.?(See?Schwemm,?Private?Enforcement?and?the?Federal?Fair?Housing?Act?(1988)?6?Yale?L.?&?Pol’y?Rev.?375,?384?[hereafter?Private?Enforcement?and?Fair?Housing].)?Although?low?income?undoubtedly?prevents?many?minority?group?members?from?obtaining?better?housing,?this?case?vividly?demonstrates?that?discrimination?on?racial?and?other?grounds?continues?to?prevent?individuals?from?obtaining?housing?they?can?well?afford,?a?situation?that?Congress?has?recognized?to?be?one?of?our?most?serious?social?problems.?As?one?commentator?has?written,?”The?involuntary?ghetto?is?inimical?to?the?American?dream.”?(Kaplan,?Discrimination?in?California?Housing:?The?Need?for?Additional?Legislation?(1962)?50?Cal.L.Rev.?635,?643?[hereafter?Discrimination?in?California?Housing].)?And,?as?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?recognized,?a?landlord?who?discriminates?against?a?rental?applicant?injures?not?just?the?applicant,?but?the?whole?community.?(Trafficante?v.?Metropolitan?Life?Ins.?(1972)?409?U.S.?205,?211?[34?L.Ed.2d?415,?420,?93?S.Ct.?364].)

FEHA?declares?that?”the?practice?of?discrimination?because?of?race,?color,?religion,?sex,?marital?status,?national?origin,?or?ancestry?in?housing?accommodations?is?…?against?public?policy.”?(??12920.)?As?used?in?FEHA,?the?term?”housing?accommodations”?includes?virtually?all?real?property?intended?to?be?used?as?a?home?or?residence.?(??12927,?subd.?(d).)?”Discrimination”?includes?refusing?to?sell,?rent,?or?lease;?misrepresenting?the?availability?of?accommodations;?providing?segregated?housing;?and?providing?inferior?terms,?facilities,?or?services.?(??12927,?subd.?(c).)?FEHA’s?stated?purpose?is?to?”eliminate?such?discriminatory?practices.”?(??12920.)

A?person?who?has?suffered?housing?discrimination?can?seek?redress?by?filing?a?verified?complaint?with?the?Department?of?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?(Department).?(??12960.)?The?Department?investigates?the?complaint?and?seeks?to?conciliate?the?dispute.?(???12963,?12963.7.)?It?then?has?two?options:?It?may?issue?”a?right-to-sue?letter”?permitting?the?complaining?party?to?seek?redress?in?a?civil?lawsuit?(??12980,?subd.?(d));?or,?when?necessary?and?appropriate,?it?may?issue?an?accusatory?pleading?initiating?a?[54?Cal.3d?277]?hearing?before?the?Commission?(??12981).?(See?Rojo?v.?Kliger?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?65,?72?[276?Cal.Rptr.?130,?801?P.2d?373].)

If?the?Department?issues?an?accusation?and?the?Commission?concludes?after?a?hearing?that?the?Act?has?been?violated,?the?Commission?must?issue?”an?order?requiring?[the]?respondent?to?cease?and?desist”?the?discriminatory?practice.?(??12987.)?In?addition,?the?Commission?may?take?whatever?other?steps?it?deems?necessary?to?achieve?the?Act’s?stated?goal?of?eliminating?housing?discrimination.?These?additional?steps?include?requiring?the?respondent?to?sell?or?rent?the?housing?(or?comparable?housing)?to?the?complainant,?and?awarding?the?complainant?”actual?damages.”?(Ibid.)?As?the?majority?acknowledges?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?255),?the?term?”actual?damages”?includes?damages?for?emotional?suffering.?In?the?context?of?damage?awards,?emotional?suffering?includes?mortification,?humiliation,?indignity,?grief,?anxiety,?and?worry.?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?644,?648-649?[257?Cal.Rptr.?865,?771?P.2d?814].)?The?constitutional?validity?of?the?legislative?authorization?for?the?Commission?to?award?emotional?distress?damages?is?one?of?the?two?issues?presented?by?this?case.

1. Congress?Has?Recognized?the?Necessity?of?Effective?Administrative?Remedies?for?Housing?Discrimination

An?administrative?tribunal’s?ability?to?compensate?discrimination?victims?with?meaningful?damage?awards?is?crucial?to?eliminating?discrimination?in?housing.?This?is?demonstrated?by?the?history?of?FEHA’s?federal?counterpart,?the?Fair?Housing?Act,?and?by?the?congressional?findings?supporting?recent?amendments?of?that?legislation.

The?federal?Fair?Housing?Act?is?similar?in?both?purpose?and?content?to?FEHA.fn.?3?Like?FEHA,?the?federal?law?depends?on?private?enforcement?to?achieve?its?policy?goals.?(See?Private?Enforcement?and?Fair?Housing,?supra,?6?Yale?L.?&?Pol’y?Rev.?375,?378.)?The?United?States?Supreme?Court?has?observed?that?”complaints?by?private?persons?are?the?primary?method?of?obtaining?compliance?with?the?[Fair?Housing]?Act.”?(Trafficante?v.?Metropolitan?Life?Ins.,?supra,?409?U.S.?205,?209?[34?L.Ed.2d?415,?419].)?When?the?victims?of?housing?discrimination?enforce?the?fair?housing?laws,?they?”act?not?only?on?their?own?behalf?but?also?’as?private?attorneys?general?in?[54?Cal.3d?278]?vindicating?a?policy?that?Congress?considered?to?be?of?the?highest?priority.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?211?[34?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?420].)

Private?enforcement?of?the?federal?Fair?Housing?Act?has?been?frustrated,?however,?by?the?difficulty?of?pursuing?court?actions.?As?one?commentator?notes:?”[T]he?prospect?of?hiring?a?lawyer?and?filing?a?lawsuit?is?not?appealing?to?many?people,?and?this?problem?is?especially?acute?in?the?housing?field.?The?very?fact?that?an?individual?or?a?family?is?in?the?market?for?new?housing?often?means?that?their?lives?are?in?a?state?of?flux,”?which?frequently?makes?bringing?a?civil?lawsuit?”a?practical?impossibility.”?(Private?Enforcement?and?Fair?Housing,?supra,?6?Yale?L.?&?Pol’y?Rev.?at?p.?380.)?Other?commentators?agree?that?allowing?victims?of?housing?discrimination?to?bring?court?actions?cannot?alone?eradicate?discriminatory?housing?practices.?(Discrimination?in?California?Housing,?supra,?50?Cal.L.Rev.?635,?642,?fn.?42?[“Given?the?expenses?emanating?from?a?lengthy?trial,?the?doubt?as?to?the?outcome,?immediate?need?for?housing,?and?the?difficulty?in?calculating?damages,?many?victims?of?[housing]?discrimination?may?not?(or?cannot)?initiate?court?action.”].)

Compared?to?a?court?action,?an?administrative?proceeding?is?simple?to?initiate.?There?are?no?complex?procedural?requirements?that?would?require?the?complainant?to?seek?out?and?retain?private?counsel.?And?administrative?proceedings?usually?produce?decisions?and?remedies?more?quickly?than?judicial?proceedings.

For?administrative?proceedings?to?be?truly?effective,?however,?they?must?offer?meaningful?compensation?to?the?claimant.?The?federal?experience?shows?that?the?single?most?important?component?of?an?effective?fair?housing?program?is?the?administrative?agency’s?enforcement?authority.?If?that?authority?is?weak,?the?statutory?scheme?will?not?succeed.

As?originally?enacted,?the?federal?Fair?Housing?Act?offered?no?effective?administrative?redress?of?private?claims?because?the?powers?of?HUD,?the?administrative?agency?charged?with?enforcing?the?federal?law,?were?limited?to?”informal?methods?of?conference,?conciliation,?and?persuasion.”?(Former?42?U.S.C.???3610(a);?Pub.L.?No.?90-284?(Apr.?11,?1968)?tit.?VIII,???810,?82?Stat.?85.)?A?victim?of?housing?discrimination?could?obtain?equitable?relief?and?money?damages?only?by?prevailing?in?a?civil?lawsuit.?The?limitation?on?HUD’s?enforcement?authority?was?widely?criticized?because,?as?noted?above,?discrimination?victims?pursue?the?alternate?route?of?prosecuting?a?court?action?too?infrequently?to?make?private?tort?actions?an?effective?method?of?combating?housing?discrimination.?(See,?e.g.,?Kushner,?An?Unfinished?Agenda:?The?Federal?Fair?Housing?Enforcement?Effort?(1988)?6?Yale?L.?&?[54?Cal.3d?279]?Pol’y?Rev.?348,?354;?Private?Enforcement?and?Fair?Housing,?supra,?6?Yale?L.?&?Pol’y?Rev.?375,?380.)

Congress?acknowledged?the?validity?of?these?criticisms?in?1988.?It?found?that?discrimination?and?segregation?in?housing?remained?pervasive?20?years?after?the?federal?law?was?enacted,?noting?HUD’s?estimate?that?2?million?instances?of?housing?discrimination?occur?each?year.?(House?Rep.?of?the?Judiciary?Com.?(hereafter?House?Report),?1988?U.S.?Code?Cong.?&?Admin.?News,?at?p.?2176.)?Based?on?this?experience,?Congress?determined?that?the?principal?defect?in?the?existing?law,?which?prevented?it?from?achieving?the?goal?of?eradicating?discrimination?in?housing,?was?the?absence?of?an?effective?administrative?enforcement?mechanism?(ibid.),?and?that?an?administrative?proceeding?should?be?the?primary?method?by?which?persons?aggrieved?by?discriminatory?housing?practices?obtain?redress?(id.?at?p.?2200).?For?the?express?purpose?of?providing?effective?administrative?remedies,?Congress?passed?the?Fair?Housing?Amendments?Act?of?1988.?(42?U.S.C.???3612;?House?Rep.,?supra,?1988?U.S.?Code?Cong.?&?Admin.?News,?at?pp.?2173-2175.)

These?amendments?added?aggressive?administrative?enforcement?capabilities?to?the?fair?housing?provisions?of?the?federal?act.?They?provide?for?agency?enforcement?of?private?claims?before?an?administrative?law?judge,?who?is?empowered,?upon?a?finding?of?housing?discrimination,?to?award?appropriate?relief?including?compensatory?damages,fn.?4?injunctive?relief,?other?equitable?relief,?and?civil?penalties?of?a?maximum?of?$10,000?for?a?first?violation?and?up?to?$50,000?for?two?or?more?violations?within?a?seven-year?period.?(42?U.S.C.???3612(b),?(g);?House?Rep.,?supra,?1988?U.S.?Code?Cong.?&?Admin.?News,?at?p.?2198.)?The?amendments?thus?reflect?the?considered?judgment?of?Congress?that?effective?administrative?remedies,?including?the?ability?to?impose?damages?and?penalties?in?addition?to?equitable?relief,?are?vital?to?the?elimination?of?housing?discrimination.?[54?Cal.3d?280]?C.?California?Law?Has?Also?Acknowledged?That?Effective?Administrative?Remedies?Are?Essential?to?Eliminate?Housing?Discrimination

The?history?of?California?fair?housing?laws?is?also?instructive.?Before?1963,?California?fair?housing?laws?were?criticized?for?failing?to?provide?any?administrative?remedy.?(Discrimination?in?California?Housing,?supra,?50?Cal.L.Rev.?635,?642-643.)?In?that?year,?and?long?before?the?federal?government?recognized?that?eliminating?housing?discrimination?hinged?on?effective?administrative?enforcement,?the?California?Legislature?provided?such?enforcement.?The?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?(former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35700?et?seq.,?enacted?by?Stats.?1963,?ch.?1853,????2-4,?pp.?3823-3830)?authorized?the?Commission?to?award?damages?as?an?alternative?to?equitable?relief.?Subsequent?amendments?expanded?the?Commission’s?authority?to?award?damages?by?permitting?cumulative?awards?of?damages?and?equitable?remedies?and?by?raising?the?monetary?limit?on?damage?awards.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?260.)

The?Legislature?combined?the?then-separate?housing?and?employment?antidiscrimination?provisions?into?FEHA?in?1980.?From?the?outset,?FEHA?has?authorized?administrative?awards?of?equitable?relief?and?damages.?(??12987.)?One?year?after?enacting?FEHA,?the?Legislature?amended?it?to?increase?the?Commission’s?authority?to?award?damages?by?removing?the?limit?on?the?amount?of?actual?damages.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?260.)?These?repeated?expansions?of?the?Commission’s?power?to?award?actual?damages?reflect?the?Legislature’s?recognition?that?tough?administrative?enforcement?powers?are?necessary?to?eradicate?discrimination?in?housing.

This?case?illustrates?the?practical?advantages?of?administrative?enforcement.?The?claimant,?Robert?Cannon,?met?with?an?attorney?one?time?for?less?than?two?hours?at?a?cost?of?$300.?It?appears?Cannon?then?filed?his?own?FEHA?claim,?and?thereafter?has?not?been?represented?by?counsel?either?before?the?Commission?or?in?court.?Instead,?the?Department,?after?satisfying?itself?of?the?validity?of?Cannon’s?claim,?has?prosecuted?the?action?in?its?own?name.

The?effectiveness?of?the?administrative?remedy?will?be?destroyed,?however,?if?the?Commission?is?deprived?of?authority?to?award?compensation?for?nonmonetary?injuries.?This?is?because?in?most?housing?cases,?the?”out-of-?pocket?damages?are?de?minimis.”?(Private?Enforcement?and?Fair?Housing,?supra,?6?Yale?L.?&?Pol’y?Rev.?375,?380.)?Even?though?administrative?proceedings?are?less?burdensome?to?claimants?than?prosecuting?a?court?case,?they?do?involve?a?significant?investment?of?time?and?effort.?Unless?the?[54?Cal.3d?281]?administrative?forum?can?continue?to?offer?meaningful?redress,?many?persons?who?have?clearly?suffered?invidious?discrimination?may?simply?forgo?their?claims.?The?Commission’s?authority?to?compensate?for?emotional?distress?is?therefore?crucial?to?effective?enforcement.?To?deny?that?authority?is?to?frustrate?the?statutory?goal?of?ensuring?that?housing?applicants?in?California?will?have?free?and?equal?access?to?available?housing,?limited?only?by?their?financial?means.?D.?The?Judicial?Powers?Clause?Does?Not?Deprive?the?Commission?of?Its?Statutory?Authority?to?Compensate?Victims?of?Housing?Discrimination?for?Their?Emotional?Distress

The?majority?concludes?that?administrative?awards?of?general?compensatory?damages?for?pain?and?suffering?are?not?”reasonably?necessary”?to?effectuate?FEHA’s?primary?purpose?and?thus?violate?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?the?state?Constitution.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?265.)?The?analysis?offered?in?support?of?this?conclusion?is?fundamentally?flawed.

In?McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?348,?372-374?[261?Cal.Rptr.?318,?777?P.2d?91],?we?interpreted?our?state?Constitution’s?judicial?powers?clause?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?VI,???1)?as?setting?both?a?procedural?and?a?substantive?limitation?on?an?administrative?agency’s?exercise?of?powers?that?are?constitutionally?reserved?to?the?judiciary.?Because?administrative?orders?made?under?FEHA?are?subject?to?judicial?review,?the?procedural?limitation?is?not?in?issue?here.fn.?5

The?substantive?limitation,?as?we?explained?in?McHugh,?prohibits?administrative?agencies?from?exercising?”judicial-like”?powers?only?when?those?powers?are?not?”reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?the?agency’s?primary,?legitimate?regulatory?purposes.”?(McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348,?372,?italics?omitted.)?Thus,?so?long?as?administrative?awards?of?damages?to?compensate?individual?victims?for?pain?and?suffering?resulting?from?discrimination?made?unlawful?by?FEHA?are?”reasonably?necessary”?to?achieve?FEHA’s?primary,?legitimate?regulatory?purpose,?such?awards?do?not?violate?the?judicial?powers?clause.

FEHA’s?primary?and?legitimate?purpose?is?the?elimination?of?discriminatory?housing?practices.?As?I?have?shown,?FEHA,?like?its?federal?counterpart,?relies?on?private?enforcement?to?achieve?its?policy?goal.?FEHA?includes?[54?Cal.3d?282]?awards?of?compensatory?damages?in?the?administrative?arsenal?of?remedies?as?an?essential?means?of?furthering?its?statutory?objective.?Such?damages?are?thus?reasonably?necessary?to?effectuate?the?Act,?and?therefore?do?not?conflict?with?the?powers?that?our?state?Constitution?reserves?to?the?judiciary.

In?reaching?its?contrary?conclusion,?the?majority?misapprehends?FEHA’s?purpose.?It?characterizes?that?purpose?as?providing?”a?streamlined?and?economic?procedure?for?preventing?and?redressing?discrimination?in?housing?as?an?alternative?to?the?more?cumbersome?and?costly?procedure?of?civil?suit.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?264.)?Certainly,?it?is?important?that?FEHA’s?administrative?procedure?be?both?”streamlined?and?economic.”?But?to?say,?as?the?majority?does,?that?this?is?FEHA’s?primary?goal?is?to?mistake?its?means?for?its?end.?An?administrative?proceeding?may?be?streamlined?and?economic,?and?yet?be?completely?ineffective?in?eliminating?discriminatory?housing?practices.?Indeed,?this?will?be?the?practical?effect?of?the?majority’s?holding.

The?majority?need?not?guess?at?the?legislative?purpose?underlying?FEHA;?it?need?only?recognize?what?the?Legislature?itself?has?expressed?to?be?FEHA’s?stated?purpose:?”to?provide?effective?remedies?which?will?eliminate?such?discriminatory?[housing]?practices.”?(??12920.)?Because?administrative?awards?that?compensate?victims?of?housing?discrimination?for?their?emotional?distress?serve?to?achieve?this?goal,?they?are?”reasonably?necessary”?and?thus?satisfy?the?test?this?court?enunciated?in?McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348.

The?majority?concedes?that?”compensatory?damages?serve?to?deter?discrimination”?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?258),?but?then?concludes?that?deterring?discrimination?is?not?relevant?to?the?issue?in?this?case?(ibid.).?The?majority?misses?the?point.?Whether?compensatory?damages?serve?in?any?significant?way?to?further?FEHA’s?underlying?purpose?is?precisely?the?issue;?because?they?do,?administrative?awards?of?such?damages?do?not?violate?the?judicial?powers?clause.

1. FEHA?Authorizes?the?Commission?to?Award?Punitive?Damages?Up?to?the?Statutory?Maximum?for?Each?Act?of?Housing?Discrimination

The?other?issue?presented?by?this?case?is?the?scope?of?the?Commission’s?authority?to?award?punitive?damages.?FEHA?authorizes?the?Commission?to?order?the?payment?”of?punitive?damages?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?one?thousand?dollars,”?plus?an?adjustment?for?inflation,?upon?a?finding?that?”a?respondent?has?engaged?in?any?unlawful?practice”?as?defined?by?the?Act.?(??12987,?subd.?(2),?italics?added.)?In?this?case,?the?Commission?found?35?[54?Cal.3d?283]?separate?instances?in?which?Walnut?Creek?Manor’s?owner?and?rental?manager?had?violated?FEHA?by?renting?to?non-African-American?applicants?while?Cannon’s?application?was?pending.?For?these?repeated?FEHA?violations,?the?Commission?awarded?Cannon?$40,635?in?punitive?damages,?that?is,?$1,000?for?each?discriminatory?act,?plus?an?adjustment?for?inflation.?The?majority?has?limited?that?award?to?$1,000?plus?the?inflation?adjustment,?reasoning?that?the?term?”unlawful?practice”?as?used?in?the?statute?denotes?an?entire?course?of?any?one?form?of?discriminatory?conduct?against?one?particular?victim.?I?disagree.?As?used?in?section?12987,?”unlawful?practice”?means?any?single?act?in?violation?of?FEHA.

The?controlling?issue?in?interpreting?the?language?of?any?statute?is?the?intent?of?the?Legislature.?(People?v.?Jeffers?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?984,?993?[239?Cal.Rptr.?886,?741?P.2d?1127];?Milligan?v.?City?of?Laguna?Beach?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?829,?831?[196?Cal.Rptr.?38,?670?P.2d?1121].)?To?determine?that?intent,?we?look?first?to?the?words?of?the?statute,?construing?them?in?context,?while?harmonizing?”both?internally?and?with?each?other,?to?the?extent?possible”?those?statutes?or?statutory?sections?that?pertain?to?the?same?subject?matter.?(Dyna-Med,?Inc.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1379,?1386-1387?[241?Cal.Rptr.?67,?743?P.2d?1323].)

Viewed?in?isolation,?the?language?of?section?12987?is?ambiguous?on?the?point?at?issue.?The?statute?does?not?expressly?provide?that?the?punitive?damage?limit?applies?to?each?distinct?act?of?discrimination,?to?each?separate?form?of?discrimination,?or?jointly?to?all?discriminatory?acts?of?whatever?form.?The?meaning?of?ambiguous?statutory?language?should?be?”determined?with?reference?to?whole?system?of?law?of?which?it?is?a?part?….”?(Travelers?Indemnity?Co.?v.?Gillespie?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?82,?99-100?[266?Cal.Rptr.?117,?785?P.2d?500].)?Therefore,?to?ascertain?the?Legislature’s?intent,?I?look?first?to?FEHA’s?other?provisions.

The?term?”unlawful?practice”?appears?in?two?sections?of?FEHA?in?addition?to?section?12987.?Section?12960?authorizes?persons?who?claim?to?be?aggrieved?by?an?alleged?”unlawful?practice”?to?file?a?verified?complaint?with?the?Department,?while?section?12965,?subdivision?(a)?states?that?if?efforts?at?conciliation?and?persuasion?fail?to?eliminate?the?”unlawful?practice,”?the?Department?can?file?an?accusation.?The?statutory?scheme?is?best?harmonized?by?interpreting?the?term?”unlawful?practice”?as?having?the?same?meaning?in?all?three?instances.?As?the?majority?acknowledges,?a?single?act?of?discrimination?will?support?the?filing?of?either?a?complaint?under?section?12960?or?a?Department?accusation?under?section?12965.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?269.)?Thus,?the?term?”unlawful?practice”?in?section?12987?should?be?similarly?interpreted?[54?Cal.3d?284]?as?meaning?any?single?act?of?discrimination.?In?this?way,?each?”unlawful?practice”?sufficient?to?justify?a?complaint?or?accusation?also?justifies?a?punitive?damage?award?up?to?the?statutory?limit.

In?interpreting?any?statute,?”[t]he?object?to?be?achieved?and?the?evil?to?be?prevented?are?prime?considerations?in?determining?legislative?intent.”?(People?v.?Jeffers,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?984,?997,?citing?Judson?Steel?Corp.?v.?Workers’?Comp.?Appeals?Bd.?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?658,?669?[150?Cal.Rptr.?250,?586?P.2d?564].)?A?court?should?arrive?at?an?interpretation?that?promotes?the?general?purpose?and?policy?of?the?law,?not?one?that?defeats?it.?(Harry?Carian?Sales?v.?Agricultural?Labor?Relations?Bd.?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?209,?223?[216?Cal.Rptr.?688,?703?P.2d?27],?quoting?People?v.?Centr-O-Mart?(1950)?34?Cal.2d?702,?704?[214?P.2d?378].)?FEHA?itself?states?that?its?provisions?”shall?be?construed?liberally”?to?effectuate?its?purposes.?(??12993.)

In?the?housing?field,?as?I?have?noted,?FEHA’s?purpose?is?”to?provide?effective?remedies?which?will?eliminate?such?discriminatory?[housing]?practices.”?(??12920.)?This?court?must?therefore?liberally?construe?any?ambiguous?provision?in?the?manner?that?best?achieves?this?objective.?In?general,?punitive?damage?awards?serve?”to?punish?and?through?punishment,?to?deter.”?(Dyna-Med,?Inc.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?1379,?1387.)?Punitive?damage?awards?serve?FEHA’s?goal?of?providing?effective?remedies?to?eliminate?discriminatory?housing?practices?by?deterring?such?practices.?The?deterrent?effect?will?be?greater?if?the?punitive?damage?limit?is?applied?separately?to?each?discriminatory?act,?rather?than?jointly?to?a?succession?of?such?acts.?This?construction,?therefore,?best?satisfies?the?legislative?command?that?FEHA’s?provisions?be?liberally?construed?to?achieve?the?Act’s?objectives.

The?majority?limits?a?landlord’s?potential?punitive?damage?exposure?to?$1,000?per?victim,?no?matter?how?many?discriminatory?acts?the?landlord?commits,?so?long?as?the?discriminatory?acts?are?of?the?same?type.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?270.)?This?statutory?construction?means?that?a?landlord?who?once?discriminates?against?an?applicant?has?little?reason?not?to?continue?to?do?so.?Here,?for?example,?the?Commission?found?that?the?landlord?had?discriminated?against?Cannon?35?times?by?renting?to?more?recent?applicants,?yet?the?majority?limits?the?Commission?to?a?single?$1,000?award?of?punitive?damages,?just?as?if?there?had?been?but?a?single?act?of?discrimination.?This?$1,000?award?is?little?punishment?for?a?landlord?who?has?committed?as?many?violations?of?FEHA?as?occurred?here.?As?the?majority?interprets?it,?section?12987?will?neither?deter?repeated?acts?of?housing?discrimination?nor?advance?FEHA’s?statutory?objective.?[54?Cal.3d?285]

The?majority’s?reading?of?section?12987?makes?the?number?of?victims?the?dispositive?factor?in?determining?the?scope?of?the?Commission’s?authority?to?award?punitive?damages.?This?focus?on?the?number?of?victims,?rather?than?the?culpability?of?the?wrongdoer,?is?inconsistent?with?the?deterrent?purpose?of?punitive?damages.?Moreover,?an?amendment?to?section?12987?deleting?language?that?linked?the?$1,000?maximum?punitive?damage?award?to?”the?aggrieved?person”?is?further?indication?of?legislative?intent?that?the?availability?of?such?awards?not?be?dependent?on?the?number?of?victims.

The?prior?version?of?section?12987,?subdivision?(2),?authorized?the?Commission?to?award?”punitive?damages?to?the?aggrieved?person?in?an?amount?not?to?exceed?one?thousand?dollars.”?(Former???12987,?subd.?(2),?added?by?Stats.?1980,?ch.?992,???4,?p.?3162.)?In?1981,?the?Legislature?amended?subdivision?(2)?of?section?12987,?deleting?the?reference?to?”the?aggrieved?person.”?(Stats.?1981,?ch.?899,???3,?p.?3424.)?”[A]?material?change?in?the?phraseology?of?a?legislative?enactment?is?ordinarily?viewed?as?showing?an?intention?on?the?part?of?the?legislature?to?change?the?meaning?of?the?statute.”?(McDonough?Power?Equipment?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(1972)?8?Cal.3d?527,?534,?fn.?5?[105?Cal.Rptr.?330,?503?P.2d?1338].)?The?Legislature’s?deletion?of?the?”aggrieved?person”?language?from?section?12987?is?one?more?indication?of?legislative?intent?that?the?statute’s?$1,000?limit?on?an?administrative?award?of?punitive?damages?not?depend?solely?on?the?number?of?persons?aggrieved?by?the?discrimination.?This?conclusion?is?also?consistent?with?the?Commission’s?interpretation?of?section?12987.

In?this?case,?the?Commission?has?interpreted?section?12987?to?allow?an?award?of?punitive?damages?to?a?single?victim?for?each?wrongful?act?in?violation?of?FEHA.?(See?also?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Green?(1986)?No.?86-07,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1986-1987,?CEB?1,?pp.?12,?14].)?Courts?give?great?weight?to?an?agency’s?construction?of?a?statute?it?is?charged?with?administering?(Highland?Ranch?v.?Agricultural?Labor?Relations?Bd.?(1981)?29?Cal.3d?848,?859?[176?Cal.Rptr.?753,?633?P.2d?949]),?and?generally?will?follow?that?construction?”unless?it?is?clearly?erroneous”?(San?Mateo?City?School?Dist.?v.?Public?Employment?Relations?Bd.?(1983)?33?Cal.3d?850,?856?[191?Cal.Rptr.?800,?663?P.2d?523]).?Here,?the?Commission’s?construction?of?the?punitive?damage?limit?as?applying?to?each?separate?discriminatory?act?is?not?plainly?erroneous?and?therefore?should?be?followed?by?this?court.

The?majority?is?of?the?view?that?its?construction?of?section?12987?is?necessary?to?preserve?the?constitutionality?of?the?statute?because?a?contrary?interpretation?would?conflict?with?the?judicial?powers?clause?of?our?state?Constitution.?(Maj?opn.,?ante,?p.?271.)?I?disagree.?Administrative?punitive?damage?awards?up?to?the?statutory?maximum?for?each?separate?act?of?housing?[54?Cal.3d?286]?discrimination?are?reasonably?necessary?to?deter?housing?discrimination;?therefore,?they?comport?with?the?substantive?limitations?on?administrative?exercise?of?judicial?powers.?Moreover,?as?I?shall?discuss,?the?majority’s?treatment?of?multiple?punitive?damage?awards?in?relation?to?the?judicial?powers?clause?is?fundamentally?inconsistent.

In?McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?pages?378-379,?this?court?relied?on?the?judicial?powers?clause?to?strike?down?a?portion?of?the?Santa?Monica?rent?control?ordinance?that?authorized?administrative?awards?of?treble?damages.?We?identified?section?12987?as?a?statute?that?would?not?violate?judicial?powers?because?the?punitive?damages?it?authorized?were?”relatively?minor”?and?it?”set?a?cap?on?such?awards.”?(McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.,?supra,?at?p.?378?&?fn.?46.)

Here,?the?majority?approves?multiple?punitive?damage?awards?against?one?landlord,?provided?each?award?is?payable?to?a?different?victim?or?based?on?a?different?form?of?discrimination.?In?so?doing,?the?majority?necessarily?concedes?that?multiple?punitive?damage?awards?made?under?these?circumstances?are?”relatively?minor”?and?in?an?amount?”capped”?by?statute,?and?thus?not?violative?of?the?judicial?powers?clause?as?explicated?in?McHugh?v.?Santa?Monica?Rent?Control?Bd.,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?348.?Yet?if?multiple?punitive?damage?awards?to?different?victims?or?to?the?same?victim?based?on?different?forms?of?discrimination?are?constitutional?because?they?are?relatively?minor?and?capped?by?statute,?then?under?the?majority’s?own?logic?multiple?punitive?damage?awards?to?the?same?victim?based?on?multiple?acts?of?the?same?type?of?discrimination?should?be?no?less?offensive?to?the?judicial?powers?clause.?The?majority?fails?to?cover?this?gap?in?its?constitutional?reasoning.

In?my?view,?the?Commission?correctly?interpreted?section?12987?to?authorize?an?award?of?up?to?$1,000?in?punitive?damages?for?each?separate?act?of?housing?discrimination.

III.?Conclusion

The?persistence?of?discriminatory?housing?practices?and?the?history?of?state?and?federal?efforts?to?combat?them?demonstrate?that?past?remedial?measures?have?not?been?sufficient?and?that?vigorous?administrative?enforcement,?with?meaningful?compensatory?and?punitive?damage?awards,?offers?the?best?available?means?to?ensure?a?free?and?nondiscriminatory?housing?market.

The?refusal?to?provide?housing?on?grounds?made?unlawful?by?FEHA?is?invidious?not?simply?because?the?applicant?is?denied?housing,?but?also?[54?Cal.3d?287]?because?the?act?of?discrimination?itself?demeans?basic?human?dignity.?By?stripping?the?Commission?of?its?statutory?authority?to?compensate?the?victims?of?such?discrimination?for?emotional?distress-in?the?name?of?preserving?judicial?prerogatives?under?the?state?Constitution-and?by?severely?restricting?the?Commission’s?statutory?authority?to?punish?repeated?acts?of?discrimination?with?awards?of?punitive?damages,?the?majority?destroys?vital?components?of?a?carefully?structured?statutory?system,?setting?that?system?up?to?fail.?Broussard,?J.,?concurred.

FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Government?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.

FN?2.?The?Court?of?Appeal?found?it?unnecessary?to?reach?Manor’s?claims?that?the?award?of?compensatory?damages?also?violated?article?III,?section?3?(separation?of?powers?clause)?and?article?I,?section?16?(jury?trial?clause)?of?the?California?Constitution?and?the?Sixth?and?Seventh?Amendments?(jury?trial)?to?the?United?States?Constitution.

FN?3.?The?parties?do?not?seek?review?of?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?determination?that?substantial?evidence?supported?the?commission’s?factual?findings,?and?that?the?trial?court,?although?choosing?to?apply?the?independent?judgment?test,?could?properly?have?applied?the?substantial?evidence?standard?of?review.?The?parties?likewise?do?not?challenge?the?commission’s?determination?that?Manor?and?Boswell?are?liable,?as?principals,?for?Indridson’s?unlawful?discrimination.

FN?4.?The?phrase?”actual?damages,”?first?added?to?the?act?in?1977,?evidently?derives?from?title?VIII?of?the?federal?Civil?Rights?Act?of?1968?(act?of?Apr.?11,?1968,?tit.?VIII,???812,?Pub.L.?No.?90-284,?82?Stat.?88),?relating?to?housing?discrimination,?which?specified?that?a?court?could?award?”actual?damages?and?not?more?than?$1,000?punitive?damages”?(see?former?42?U.S.C.???3612(c)).?The?term?”actual?damages”?as?used?in?the?federal?statute?has?been?construed?to?be?a?synonym?for?compensatory?damages.?(Steele?v.?Title?Realty?Company?(10th?Cir.?1973)?478?F.2d?380,?384;?Morehead?v.?Lewis,?supra,?432?F.Supp.?674,?678;?see?also?Curtis?v.?Loether?(1974)?415?U.S.?189,?195-197?[39?L.Ed.2d?260,?266-268,?94?S.Ct.?1005].)?The?term?as?used?in?the?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Act?(Civ.?Code,???52,?subd.?(a))?has?been?likewise?construed.?(See?Greenberg?v.?Western?Turf?Assn.?(1903)?140?Cal.?357,?360,?363?[73?P.?1050]?[construing???2?of?the?1893?act,?Stats.?1893,?ch.?CLXXXV,?p.?220].)

FN?5.?Civil?Code?section?52?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”(a)?Whoever?denies,?…?or?whoever?makes?any?discrimination,?distinction?or?restriction?on?account?of?sex,?color,?race,?religion,?ancestry,?national?origin,?or?blindness?or?other?physical?disability?contrary?to?the?provisions?of?Section?51?[guaranteeing?equal?accommodations?in?business?establishments]?or?51.5?[prohibiting?discrimination?by?business?establishments],?is?liable?for?each?and?every?such?offense?for?the?actual?damages,?and?such?amount?as?may?be?determined?by?a?jury,?or?a?court?sitting?without?a?jury,?up?to?a?maximum?of?three?times?the?amount?of?actual?damage?but?in?no?case?less?than?two?hundred?fifty?dollars?($250),?and?such?attorney’s?fees?as?may?be?determined?by?the?court?in?addition?thereto,?suffered?by?any?person?denied?the?rights?provided?in?Section?51?or?51.5.?[?]?…?[?]?(f)?Any?person?claiming?to?be?aggrieved?by?an?alleged?unlawful?practice?in?violation?of?Section?51?or?51.7?[right?to?freedom?from?violence?or?intimidation?on?grounds?of?race,?sex,?etc.]?may?also?file?a?verified?complaint?with?the?Department?of?Fair?Employment?and?Housing?pursuant?to?Section?12948?of?the?Government?Code.”

For?an?extensive?discussion?of?the?interrelationship?between?the?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Act?(Civ.?Code,???51?et?seq.)?and?the?housing?provisions?of?the?act,?see?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Carefree?Ranch?Mobile?Home?Park?(1984)?No.?84-31,?FEHC?Precedential?Decisions?1984-1985,?CEB?12,?pages?5-16.

FN?6.?Whereas?the?FEPA?provided?for?administrative?relief?and?made?no?mention?of?damages,?the?Hawkins?and?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Acts?provided?for?judicial?relief?and?authorized?the?award?of?damages.?The?Hawkins?Act?permitted?complainants?to?sue?for?both?equitable?relief?and?damages?in?an?amount?not?less?than?$500;?the?Unruh?Civil?Rights?Act?authorized?the?award?of?”actual?damages”?plus?$250.?(Dyna-Med,?Inc.?v.?Fair?Employment?&?Housing?Com.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1379,?1394?&?fn.?16?[241?Cal.Rptr.?67,?743?P.2d?1323]?(hereafter?Dyna-?Med);?Burks?v.?Poppy?Construction?Co.?(1962)?57?Cal.2d?463,?470?[20?Cal.Rptr.?609,?370?P.2d?313].)

FN?7.?In?addition?to?authorizing?administrative?remedies?for?particular?acts?of?discrimination,?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?authorized?the?administrative?agency?to?take?steps?to?prevent?violations?of?the?housing?antidiscrimination?statutes,?e.g.,?to?promulgate?rules,?receive?complaints,?conduct?hearings?and?investigations,?create?advisory?agencies?and?councils,?and?issue?reports.?(Former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35730.5;?Stearns,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?at?p.?214,?fn.?8;?see?now????12930,?12935.)

FN?8.?As?originally?enacted?the?Rumford?Fair?Housing?Act?provided?in?pertinent?part:?”If?the?commission?finds?that?a?respondent?has?engaged?in?any?unlawful?practice?as?defined?in?this?part,?the?commission?shall?…?issue?…?an?order?requiring?[the]?respondent?to?cease?and?desist?from?such?practice?and?to?take?one?of?the?following?affirmative?actions,?as,?in?the?judgment?of?the?commission,?will?effectuate?the?purpose?of?this?part:?[?]?(1)?The?sale?or?rental?of?the?housing?accommodation?to?the?aggrieved?person,?if?it?is?still?available.?[?]?(2)?The?sale?or?rental?of?a?like?accommodation,?if?one?is?available,?or?the?next?vacancy?in?a?like?accommodation.?[?]?(3)?The?payment?of?damages?to?the?aggrieved?person?in?any?amount?not?to?exceed?five?hundred?dollars?($500),?if?the?commission?determines?that?neither?of?the?remedies?under?(1)?or?(2)?is?available.”?(Former?Health?&?Saf.?Code,???35738,?italics?added.)

FN?9.?”Incidental”?is?defined?in?part?as?”Depending?upon?or?appertaining?to?something?else?as?primary;?…?something?incidental?to?the?main?purpose”?(Black’s?Law?Dict.?(6th?ed.?1990)?p.?762,?col.?1);?”not?of?prime?concern;?subordinate”?(Webster’s?New?Internat.?Dict.,?supra,?at?p.?1257,?col.?1).

FN?10.?In?the?instant?case,?as?noted,?the?Commission?rejected?the?ALJ’s?award?of?$1,500?and?awarded?the?complainant?$50,000?in?compensatory?damages.?Commission?awards?have?reached?$100,000.?(E.g.,?Dept.?Fair?Empl.?&?Hous.?v.?Davis?Realty?Co.?(1987)?No.?87-02,?FEHC?Precedential?Decs.?1986-1987,?CEB?5?[out-of-pocket?losses?plus?$95,000?emotional?distress?damages?for?four?victims].)

FN?11.?In?1988?title?VIII?was?amended?by?the?Fair?Housing?Amendments?Act?to?permit?for?the?first?time?the?administrative?award?of?”actual?damages”?and?up?to?$50,000?in?civil?monetary?penalties?for?violations?of?the?federal?fair?housing?act.?(42?U.S.C.???3612(g)(3).)?The?1988?Fair?Housing?Amendments?Act?contains?a?judicial?option,?so?that?any?party?who?desires?a?jury?trial?may?remove?the?case?to?federal?court?and?there?demand?a?jury.?(42?U.S.C.???3612(a),?(o);?see?generally?Schwemm,?Housing?Discrimination:?Law?and?Litigation?(1990)?ch.?24,????(3610-3612:?Complaints?to?HUD.)

FN?12.?We?express?no?opinion?concerning?the?validity?of?a?legislative?authorization?for?the?commission?in?employment?cases?to?award?unlimited?compensatory?damages?(cf.???19702,?subd.?(e)?[State?Personnel?Board]),?or?in?housing?cases?to?award?nominal?or?minor?general?compensatory?damages?not?to?exceed?a?specified?maximum?amount?(cf.?Zahorian?v.?Russell?Fitt?Real?Estate?Agency,?supra,?301?A.2d?754,?761-762),?as?these?issues?are?not?before?us.?We?likewise?express?no?opinion?concerning?the?validity?of?a?statutory?authorization?for?the?administrative?imposition?of?civil?penalties.?(See?McHugh,?supra,?49?Cal.3d?at?p.?378?&?fn.?45.)

FN?13.?Section?12996?provides:?”If?any?clause,?sentence,?paragraph,?or?part?of?this?part?relating?to?discrimination?in?employment?or?the?application?thereof?to?any?person?or?circumstance,?shall,?for?any?reason,?be?adjudged?by?a?court?of?competent?jurisdiction?to?be?invalid,?such?judgment?shall?not?affect,?impair,?or?invalidate?the?remainder?of?this?part?and?the?application?thereof?to?other?persons?or?circumstances,?but?shall?be?confined?in?its?operation?to?the?clause,?sentence,?paragraph,?or?part?thereof?directly?involved?in?the?controversy?in?which?such?judgment?shall?have?been?rendered?and?to?the?person?or?circumstances?involved.”

FN?14.?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?17500?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”It?is?unlawful?for?any?person,?firm,?corporation?or?association,?or?any?employee?thereof?with?intent?directly?or?indirectly?to?dispose?of?real?or?personal?property?or?to?perform?services,?…?or?to?induce?the?public?to?enter?into?any?obligation?relating?thereto,?to?make?or?disseminate?…?any?statement,?concerning?such?real?or?personal?property?or?services,?…?which?is?untrue?or?misleading,?…”

FN?15.?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?17536?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”(a)?Any?person?who?violates?any?provision?of?this?chapter?shall?be?liable?for?a?civil?penalty?not?to?exceed?two?thousand?five?hundred?dollars?($2,500)?for?each?violation,?…”

FN?14.?The?Court?of?Appeal?judgment?omitted?an?order?directing?the?superior?court?to?strike?the?compensatory?damages?award?for?emotional?distress.?Our?modification?corrects?that?omission.

FN?1.?Government?Code?section?12900?et?seq.;?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?stated.

FN?2.?This?case?illustrates?the?point.?Cannon’s?out-of-pocket?loss?was?$2,724.50,?including?attorney?fees.?He?did,?however,?suffer?substantial?compensable?loss?in?the?form?of?emotional?distress.?The?superior?court?judge?who?reviewed?the?Commission?results?described?its?$50,000?compensatory?damage?award?to?Cannon?as?”moderate?enough?for?being?passed?over?and,?therefore?humiliated,?as?many?times?as?occurred.”

The?Commission?made?these?findings?in?support?of?its?award?for?emotional?distress:?”[Cannon]?felt?comfortable?with?the?social?and?financial?level?he?had?achieved.?[He]?felt?confident?of?his?ability?to?rent?an?apartment?because?it?was?within?his?financial?means?and?self-perceived?social?class.?He?referred?to?himself?as?someone?who?did?not?try?for?things?’out?of?his?league’?financially?or?socially?because?he?’hated?to?be?rejected.’?It?never?occurred?to?Cannon?that?he?would?not?get?an?apartment?in?the?Manor?if?he?were?patient?and?waited?his?turn.?[?]?Being?denied?housing?at?the?Manor?had?a?profound?effect?on?Cannon’s?self-esteem?and?caused?him?considerable?pain,?humiliation?and?embarrassment.?The?rejection?affected?his?friendships?with?other?residents?at?Walnut?Creek?Manor.?…?The?rejection?also?affected?Cannon’s?ability?to?look?for?other?housing,?discouraging?him?and?making?him?worry?that?he?would?be?rejected?again.”?Cannon?expressed?feelings?of?”pain?and?bewilderment”?at?his?rejection,?”he?thought?about?it?at?night,”?and?felt?”frustrated?…?by?the?realization?that?his?record?as?a?good?tenant?and?a?person?who?got?along?with?all?kinds?of?people?was?irrelevant?to?[getting?accepted?by?Walnut?Creek?Manor].”

FN?3.?Indeed,?FEHA?bears?more?than?a?passing?resemblance?to?the?federal?act.?The?Secretary?of?the?federal?Department?of?Housing?and?Urban?Development?(HUD)?must?identify?those?state?and?local?programs?that?approximate?the?federal?Fair?Housing?Act,?and?has?certified?FEHA?”as?substantially?similar?to?the?rights?and?remedies?provided?under?the?federal?Act.”?(52?Fed.Reg.?81?(Apr.?28,?1987)?pp.?15304-15305.)

FN?4.?The?federal?act?authorizes?HUD?to?award?”actual?damages.”?(42?U.S.C.???3612(g)(3).)?Under?federal?regulations,?such?damages?may?include?”damages?caused?by?humiliation?and?embarrassment.”?(24?C.F.R.???104.910(b)(1).)?Recently,?the?Eleventh?Circuit?enforced?a?decision?and?order?by?an?administrative?law?judge?awarding?$40,000?in?damages?to?a?husband?and?wife?for?the?emotional?pain?they?suffered?when?the?owner?of?a?single?family?residence?repudiated?a?sales?contract?with?them?because?he?learned?they?were?African-?American.?(Secretary,?HUD?on?Behalf?of?Herron?v.?Blackwell?(11th?Cir.?1990)?908?F.2d?864,?872.)?The?court?found?the?award?”rational?and?fully?supported?by?the?record.”?(Ibid.)?The?court?cited?this?testimony?by?the?wife,?which?is?similar?to?testimony?of?the?claimant?in?this?case:?”?’I?feel?that?everything?that?has?been?fought?for?over?the?last?30?years?…?was?a?waste?of?lives,?a?waste?of?time?on?the?part?of?all?those?people?who?worked?so?hard?for?equal?justice.?…?Our?lives?have?been?put?on?hold?because?we?are?not?allowed?to?live?where?we?can?afford?and?choose?to?live.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?873.)

FN?5.?FEHA?administrative?determinations?are?subject?to?mandamus?review?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1094.5)?and?are?enforceable?only?by?superior?court?order,?and?then?only?when?all?avenues?of?judicial?review?have?been?exhausted?or?the?time?for?such?review?has?lapsed?(??12973,?subd.?(b)).