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. 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] Discussion 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)). […]
