). A piano and musical instrument technician who works primarily in the university performing arts building brought suit to compel his employer, the university, to ” . . . take all steps necessary to assure that an effective and meaningful no smoking policy be faithfully implemented . . . ” so that he could have a smoke-free workplace. The court ruled that it could rule for the petitioner in this case only if the action to be commanded involved an area of discretion granted by the Legislature over a given subject matter. The petitioner argued the university has a ministerial duty to provide him with a smoke-free workplace while the university argued that petitioner’s demand would require a rewriting of its smoking policy — a discretionary task. The Court of Appeal noted that “we do not minimize the significance courts have placed on a person’s rights while working in areas permeated with tobacco smoke. A review of the authorities indicates that, in a proper case, the courts look favorably on the plight of a nonsmoker in today’s society. This is not such a case.” On April 25, 1989, the appellant’s petition to the California Supreme Court was denied, at 1989 Cal. LEXIS 3613.
4.5 TPLR 2.75 (1989).