Hess v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

Opinion

MILLER, J.

Victor and Helen Hess appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which sought to compel respon

[234]

dent to set aside its decision holding that appellants unlawfully discriminated against real parties in interest.

Real parties in interest John Pryor and Debbie Rodgers reached an agreement to rent a duplex owned by appellants, and paid a deposit on the unit. The Hesses subsequently learned that Pryor and Rodgers are an unmarried couple, and refused to rent to them. Appellants admitted that they would have rented the unit to Piyor and Rodgers had they been married and, in fact, rented the unit to a similarly situated couple who were married.

On May 15, 1979, Pryor and Rodgers filed a complaint with the Division of Fair Employment Practices

1

of respondent Fair Employment and Housing Commission, alleging that appellants denied them housing on the basis of their marital status. An accusation was subsequently issued by the division, charging the Hesses with unlawful discrimination. An administrative hearing was held on January 7,1980, and on April 3,1980, respondent issued a decision finding that the Hesses had unlawfully discriminated against real parties and awarded $1,000 each to Pryor and Rodgers.

The Hesses’ petition for writ of administrative mandamus was denied. This appeal follows.

Government Code section 12955

2

provides in pertinent part, “It shall be unlawful: [1J (a) For the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against any person because of the . . . marital status ... of such person.”

The commission determined that the Hesses violated this provision and issued the following findings of fact:

“VII. On or about May 10, 1979, respondent Victor Hess asked complainants if they were married. Upon being advised that they were not, respondents refused to rent the duplex unit to complainants. The refusal to rent was based solely upon complainants’ marital status.