Talk:Law of California

California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class becuase it uses the [[Category:California stub]] on the article page.

If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject California|class=stub|importance=}} above to the appropriate class and removing the stub template from the article.

The article says "California is also unusual in that like Texas and New York, and unlike 47 other states, it has separate subject-specific codes rather than a single code divided into numbered titles." I don't think this is accurate--for example, Maryland also has most of its statutes divided into subject-specific codes, albeit with a few leftover unrepealed laws in an older unitary code that used to contain all statutes before there was a gradual reorganization. I have not edited it because Maryland has that minor footnote point, I don't know what the status of the other 46 states is, and I don't want to take it out entirely if indeed California shares this feature with only a handful of other states. -- Krinsky (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Fair Employment & Housing Act

The article states that the FEHA goes significantly further in protecting employees from discrimination than does federal civil rights law. However, this is not entirely accurate. Though the FEHA does have wide application as a result of its longer list of protected classes (e.g., sexual orientation & gender identity), it is otherwise identical to corresponding federal laws.

Here is my reasoning:

California courts, and corresponding federal courts, have universally held that the FEHA is to be interpreted under Title VII jurisprudence.
Both Title VII and the FEHA have identical administrative exhaustion requirements. Employees have one year to file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), just as they have one year to file a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The FEHA has identical remedies to those provided by Title VII.

Minivanburen (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]