In Lumpkin v. Jordan (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1223, a minister sued the mayor of San Francisco for removing him from a human rights commission because of his publicly expressed views on homosexuality. In the first cause of action in his federal complaint, Reverend Lumpkin alleged the mayor had violated the FEHA by removing him solely because of his religious beliefs. (Lumpkin, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227.) In his second cause of action, he alleged the mayor deprived him of his right to exercise his constitutionally protected religious beliefs as guaranteed by section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. (Lumpkin, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1228.) As in our case, the federal court dismissed the FEHA cause of action without prejudice to refiling in state court. (Id. at p. 1228.) Reverend Lumpkin appealed, an appeal that remained pending in the federal court while he prosecuted his state claim. (Id. at p. 1229.) The federal court granted the mayor's motion for summary judgment, finding that Reverend Lumpkin had not presented evidence of a discriminatory motive but, rather, that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons had been established for his removal. (Lumpkin, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231.) In the state action, Reverend Lumpkin, like plaintiff here, argued that the federal court did not decide the issues central to his religious discrimination claim under the FEHA. (Ibid.) The court rejected Reverend Lumpkin's contention that principles of collateral estoppel did not bar his FEHA claim. "While claims under the FEHA and federal antidiscrimination remedies have their substantive differences, they are generally treated by courts as analogous. What is significant for collateral estoppel purposes is that the issue decided in the federal proceedings -- that Reverend Lumpkin was discharged from the Commission for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons -- is the pivotal factual issue that must be decided in the state FEHA proceedings. Once we give collateral estoppel effect to the prior judicial determination that secular as opposed to religious considerations provided the motivation for Reverend Lumpkin's termination, the outcome of the state FEHA proceedings is preordained." (Id. at pp. 1231-1232.)