The California Unruh Act does not require disparate impact or disparate treatment. Does the State DFEH understand this or do they exist to harass those who seek to assert their rights under the Unruh Act?
What you probably mean to say is that the California Supreme Court has held that a violation of the Unruh Act cannot be proved solely on the basis of disparate impact. See , 52 Cal. 3d 1142, 1175, 805 P.2d 873, 893 (1991), where the Court said, " We hold that a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act. A disparate impact analysis or test does not apply to Unruh Act claims. In so holding, we do not preclude the admission of relevant evidence of disparate impact in Unruh Act cases on proper foundation and subject to the general rules of evidence." Disparate impact, in other words, may be evidence of intentional discrimination, but cannot itself establish a violation of the Unruh Act. This is, of course, a very different result than we would have under the Federal Fair Housing Act, or under Title VII or other federal antidiscrimination laws.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 Yes. I am not a lawyer but over the years have acted pro se in certain instances. I appreciate your input. Dealing with the DFEH for a number of years, it took me a while to realize that every case I filed with them, they were applying the disparate impact or disparate treatment parameters. Many times they never used the McDonnell Douglas so many times I was not allowed rebuttal to the answer of the respondent. So I started researching Unruh cases. I had to insist at that point that the DFEH apply the intentional and arbitrary standards that are required under Unruh. I even asked the Governor to require the DFEH to reopen all cases where they did not apply the right law to Unruh cases. Besides a good amount of threatening and harassment by DFEH employees, I started writing my own "complaints"under penalty of perjury along with my intake for. I am dealing with Housing cases not where the DFEH is refusing to let me file my case under Unruh insisting (and cancelling appointments) if I do not file the "Housing "Intake form. Once they even had an employment investigator call me on a clearly Unruh housing intake, which they cancelled and never rescheduled. I realize asking the DFEH for help is a 1% chance. Their system is rigged so they stop many people at the "intake" stage which IMO is illegal because it stops one from exercising their right to complain because only the DFEH has the authority to issue a "signed" complaint. So I make my own. The DFEH is not in the business of stopping discrimination, but it does intimidate those who make complaints.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 I had numerous arguments with the DFEH where I claimed the act applied to "all persons" and they claimed it did not; I quoted case law that said that the Unruh act was not limited to the enumerated categories, while they disagreed. In the end, they accepted a few of my complaints and turned them into written form so I could sign them but in the end, and after appeals, no one I ever filed a complaint against has even been has ever been held liable for damages. Hence, my opinion that the DFEH's sole purpose is not to eliminate unlawful discrimination but their purpose is to perpetuate it.
There are other races who have criminal records with poor fico scores. Instead of saying "Blacks" are subject to this same character why not make it inclusive to anyone who fits the description? White people say they smoke marijuana for "Medicinal " reasons?? it' 's still marijuana regardless of the reason that just gives you a reason to smoke more of it "Legally". I took offense to your example under the "Dangerous Tenant" header.
You would think 157 years we would be talking about something else instead of "Black vs. White" housing concerns
The California Unruh Act does not require disparate impact or disparate treatment. Does the State DFEH understand this or do they exist to harass those who seek to assert their rights under the Unruh Act?
What you probably mean to say is that the California Supreme Court has held that a violation of the Unruh Act cannot be proved solely on the basis of disparate impact. See , 52 Cal. 3d 1142, 1175, 805 P.2d 873, 893 (1991), where the Court said, " We hold that a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act. A disparate impact analysis or test does not apply to Unruh Act claims. In so holding, we do not preclude the admission of relevant evidence of disparate impact in Unruh Act cases on proper foundation and subject to the general rules of evidence." Disparate impact, in other words, may be evidence of intentional discrimination, but cannot itself establish a violation of the Unruh Act. This is, of course, a very different result than we would have under the Federal Fair Housing Act, or under Title VII or other federal antidiscrimination laws.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 Yes. I am not a lawyer but over the years have acted pro se in certain instances. I appreciate your input. Dealing with the DFEH for a number of years, it took me a while to realize that every case I filed with them, they were applying the disparate impact or disparate treatment parameters. Many times they never used the McDonnell Douglas so many times I was not allowed rebuttal to the answer of the respondent. So I started researching Unruh cases. I had to insist at that point that the DFEH apply the intentional and arbitrary standards that are required under Unruh. I even asked the Governor to require the DFEH to reopen all cases where they did not apply the right law to Unruh cases. Besides a good amount of threatening and harassment by DFEH employees, I started writing my own "complaints"under penalty of perjury along with my intake for. I am dealing with Housing cases not where the DFEH is refusing to let me file my case under Unruh insisting (and cancelling appointments) if I do not file the "Housing "Intake form. Once they even had an employment investigator call me on a clearly Unruh housing intake, which they cancelled and never rescheduled. I realize asking the DFEH for help is a 1% chance. Their system is rigged so they stop many people at the "intake" stage which IMO is illegal because it stops one from exercising their right to complain because only the DFEH has the authority to issue a "signed" complaint. So I make my own. The DFEH is not in the business of stopping discrimination, but it does intimidate those who make complaints.
@@profdalespropertyvideos185 I had numerous arguments with the DFEH where I claimed the act applied to "all persons" and they claimed it did not; I quoted case law that said that the Unruh act was not limited to the enumerated categories, while they disagreed. In the end, they accepted a few of my complaints and turned them into written form so I could sign them but in the end, and after appeals, no one I ever filed a complaint against has even been has ever been held liable for damages. Hence, my opinion that the DFEH's sole purpose is not to eliminate unlawful discrimination but their purpose is to perpetuate it.
There’s so many unspoken things that we need to see if we want to help fix the program….understand?
There are other races who have criminal records with poor fico scores. Instead of saying "Blacks" are subject to this same character why not make it inclusive to anyone who fits the description? White people say they smoke marijuana for "Medicinal " reasons?? it' 's still marijuana regardless of the reason that just gives you a reason to smoke more of it "Legally". I took offense to your example under the "Dangerous Tenant" header.