Judge Tigar, in granting WinCo’s motion, extensively analyzed the FEHA and other applicable provisions of the California Government Code. Judge Tigar concluded that no law empowers the DFEH to enforce Title I of the ADA. Judge Tigar reasoned that the FEHA is the exclusive source of the DFEH’s authority over employment claims and sets forth the full range of prosecutorial powers granted to the DFEH. Since the FEHA does not expressly authorize the DFEH to prosecute Title I ADA claims, the DFEH lacks authority to do so. Judge Tigar rejected the DFEH’s argument that it has implied authority to bring ADA claims under Section 11180 of the California Government Code. Section 11180 is incorporated into the FEHA and authorizes the head of each state department to prosecute actions concerning matters relating to the business activities and subjects under the jurisdiction of the department. Judge Tigar held that the DFEH’s broad interpretation of Section 11180 would render redundant the 2013 legislation, that grants the DFEH authority to sue in state and federal courts.

Yesterday, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation announced that it had issued "subpoenas to a dozen companies with significant California customer bases, representing the first major action to be taken under the expanded oversight and enforcement authority of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL)". The CCFPL, AB 1864 (2020 Cal. Stats. ch. 157), grants the DFPI has broad investigative powers, including the power to issue subpoenas pursuant to California Government Code Sections 11180 - 11191.A year ago, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board to issue investigative subpoenas pursuant to these same statutes in State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Baldwin & Sons, Inc., 45 Cal. App. 5th 40 (2020).