Court Opinion

ID: 9599755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:21:13.824843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:46.880559
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
Since I do not believe these three real parties in interest are suffering discrimination on the basis of physical handicap within the meaning of Government Code section 12940,1 do not reach the issue to which the majority devote their lengthy discussion.
Without repeating the analysis of my dissent in American National Ins. Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 603, 611 [186 Cal.Rptr. 345, 651 P.2d 1151], I adhere to the views therein expressed. None of the three applicants for state employment in the instant case qualifies as a person with a “physical handicap” as defined by the Legislature. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (h).) Thus there was no merit to their claim of discrimination by virtue of the so-called handicap. Because their claim has no validity, the conflict between the State Personnel Board and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission over their employment contention is purely illusory.
Without unduly editorializing, it appears to me unseemly for two state agencies to engage in protracted litigation through the entire judicial system *453over protection or extension of their turf. Certainly each has enough legitimate problems with which to be concerned without entering into an arm-wrestling contest with another agency over jurisdiction. In a well-ordered administrative organization, this type of controversy would be settled by mutual agreement.
I would affirm the judgment, though not for the reasons given.
On September 19, 1985, the judgment was modified to read as printed above.