Court Opinion

ID: 9582149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:23:02.012525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:29.062054
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority holding pertaining to de novo review of administrative proceedings. However, I dissent from the majority holding following Woods v. Midwest Conveyor Co., 231 Kan. 763, 648 P.2d 234 (1982), which eliminated damages for pain, suffering and humiliation in civil rights actions before the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights (KCCR).
Woods effectively emasculated the ability of the KCCR to remedy discrimination by restricting damages to pecuniary loss. Ordinarily, only in employment discrimination with its loss of wages is there pecuniary loss to the victim. In the area of public accommodation and housing where the victim’s loss is the pain and humiliation of rejection and ridicule, the KCCR has no remedy.
This is a tragic result. The legislature made a heroic effort to strike a blow at an evil in this society. It provided an inexpensive, readily available administrative body to examine complaints and award damages where justified. Our action in Woods crippled that effort. I would reverse Woods.
Miller, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.