IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN MCDONALD et al.,
Plaintiffs
and
Appellants,
S153964
v.
Ct.App. 2/5 B188077
ANTELOPE VALLEY COMMUNITY )
COLLEGE DISTRICT, )
Los Angeles County
Defendant and Respondent.
Super. Ct. No. BC304873
When an employee voluntarily pursues an internal administrative remedy
prior to filing a complaint under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) (FEHA), is the statute of limitations on her FEHA
claim subject to equitable tolling? We conclude it is. Accordingly, we affirm the
Court of Appeal, which reversed a defense summary judgment entered solely on
the ground that plaintiff Sylvia Brown’s FEHA claim was untimely.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs John McDonald, Sylvia Brown, and Sallie Stryker filed suit
against defendant Antelope Valley Community College District (the District)
alleging racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation. The trial court
entered judgment for the District on all claims on the ground the claims were time-
barred. The Court of Appeal reversed as to McDonald and Brown and affirmed as
to Stryker.
1
We granted the District’s petition for review, limited to a single issue
pertinent only to the analysis of Brown’s claims: May equitable tolling apply to
the voluntary pursuit of internal administrative procedures prior to filing a FEHA
claim? Accordingly, we detail the factual and procedural history principally as it
relates to Brown. Because the case is before us following entry of a defense
summary judgment, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs
as the losing parties” and “liberally construe plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions
and strictly scrutinize defendant[’s] own evidence, in order to resolve any
evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiffs’ favor.” (Wiener v. Southcoast
Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.)
According to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and declarations
submitted to the trial court, Brown, an African-American, was hired by the District
in 1998 as a library technician’s assistant. She remains in that position. In
October 1999, the District listed an opening for a database administrator. Under
the governing collective bargaining agreement, in-house applicants who met the
minimum qualifications were to be interviewed. Brown applied for the database
administrator position and satisfied the position’s qualifications but was not
interviewed. The District refused to interview Brown because of her race and
instead selected a non-African-American to fill the position. Brown filed a
complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In approximately June 2000, the database administrator the District hired
was asked to resign because of poor performance. Brown applied again, but the
District again declined to interview her. It relented only after Brown protested;
however, the January 2001 interview was a sham because it was conducted well
after the other applicants for the position had already been interviewed and after a
decision had already been made about the position. The District again chose a
non-African-American for the position. Brown alleged the District’s refusal to
2
interview her was motivated by her race and was in retaliation for having
previously complained to the EEOC.
In October 2001, Brown complained of discrimination in a letter to the
Vice Chancellor of Human Resources at the California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office (Chancellor’s Office). She followed up by filing a formal
discrimination complaint with the Chancellor’s Office in early November 2001.
The Chancellor’s Office forwarded her complaint to the District for it to
investigate and “urge[d] [Brown] to work with the [D]istrict to resolve this
matter.” The Chancellor’s Office further advised Brown the District would have
until January 31, 2002, to resolve the complaint, and Brown thereafter would have
a right to appeal to the local board of trustees and, in some cases, to the
Chancellor’s Office. Finally, the Chancellor’s Office advised Brown she could
file a FEHA complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
(DFEH) at any time.
The District hired a private firm to investigate Brown’s and the other
plaintiffs’ allegations. On or about January 30, 2002, the District received a copy
of the firm’s investigative report concluding plaintiffs’ discrimination allegations
were unsubstantiated, and the District so informed plaintiffs. On February 14,
2002, plaintiffs appealed these findings to the District’s board of trustees. The
board of trustees affirmed the findings. In approximately November 2002,
plaintiffs appealed to the Chancellor’s Office. In May 2003, after a further
investigation, the Chancellor’s Office concluded plaintiffs’ discrimination
allegations were unsubstantiated.
While these internal proceedings were pending, Brown filed an
administrative complaint with the DFEH on October 11, 2002, alleging both race
and sex discrimination. She received a right-to-sue letter dated October 24, 2002.
She filed suit in the superior court on October 24, 2003, and subsequently filed
3
two amended complaints. The second amended complaint alleges the District
violated the FEHA by engaging in racial harassment and discrimination, by
retaliating against plaintiffs for their assertion of their rights, and by failing to take
all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and retaliation. It alleges
numerous systemic, long-standing discriminatory practices. The merits of these
allegations are not before us, and we express no opinion on them.
The District filed motions for summary judgment or adjudication against
each plaintiff, arguing both that their claims failed on the merits and that they were
untimely. Thereafter, the parties stipulated the trial court should decide only the
statute of limitations issue: whether plaintiffs’ administrative complaints were
timely filed with the DFEH within one year of the alleged unlawful acts, as
required by Government Code section 12960, subdivision (d).
With respect to Brown, the District argued (1) the last act complained of
occurred in January 2001; (2) her DFEH complaint was filed in October 2002,
more than one year later; and (3) although Brown filed a discrimination complaint
with the Chancellor’s Office in November 2001, equitable tolling should not apply
to the period during which she was pursuing that remedy. The District
emphasized a November 7, 2001, letter sent to each plaintiff that provided in part:
“[T]he Chancellor’s Office does not have primary jurisdiction over employment
related cases and in order to obtain a final determination, you must file your
complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing . . . . You may
file a complaint with DFEH at any[ ]time before or after the [D]istrict issues its
report and you may do so whether or not you also submit objections to the
Chancellor’s Office.”
In response, Brown argued her DFEH complaint was timely both because
she had demonstrated continuing violations through and including December 2002
and because she was entitled to equitable tolling. With respect to tolling, she
4
submitted evidence of her 2001 written complaints to the Chancellor’s Office.
This internal proceeding was initiated within one year of the January 2001 failure
to hire her, tolled the statute of limitations beginning in October or November
2001, and was still ongoing when she filed her DFEH complaint. Accordingly,
she argued, her October 2002 complaint was timely.
The trial court concluded that because the Chancellor’s Office had advised
plaintiffs they could file a complaint with the DFEH simultaneously with the
Chancellor’s Office internal proceedings, plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable
tolling. After soliciting supplemental briefing, it further found all three plaintiffs
had failed to show a continuing violation. Accordingly, the trial court granted
summary judgment, holding plaintiffs’ administrative FEHA complaints untimely
under Government Code section 12960, subdivision (d).
The Court of Appeal affirmed as to Stryker but reversed as to McDonald
and Brown. In reversing the judgment against Brown, the Court of Appeal held
traditional equitable tolling principles may apply to extend the statute of
limitations for filing a FEHA administrative complaint. It further concluded there
was a triable issue of fact as to whether application of equitable tolling principles
rendered Brown’s October 2002 administrative complaint timely.
We confined our grant of review to a single issue: whether equitable
tolling may apply to the pursuit of internal administrative remedies prior to filing a
FEHA claim.
DISCUSSION
I. Equitable Tolling During the Voluntary Pursuit of Administrative
Remedies
A. The Doctrine of Equitable Tolling
The equitable tolling of statutes of limitations is a judicially created,
nonstatutory doctrine. (See Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal.3d 410, 420 & fn. 9;
5
Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 650.) It is “designed to prevent
unjust and technical forfeitures of the right to a trial on the merits when the
purpose of the statute of limitations — timely notice to the defendant of the
plaintiff’s claims — has been satisfied.” (Appalachian Ins. Co. v. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1, 38.) Where applicable, the doctrine will
“suspend or extend a statute of limitations as necessary to ensure fundamental
practicality and fairness.” (Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal.4th 363, 370.)
Though the doctrine operates independently of the language of the Code of
Civil Procedure and other codified sources of statutes of limitations (Addison v.
State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 318-319; Mills v. Forestex Co., supra,
108 Cal.App.4th at p. 650), its legitimacy is unquestioned. We have described it
as a creature of the judiciary’s inherent power “ ‘to formulate rules of procedure
where justice demands it.’ ” (Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 420, fn. 9,
quoting Bollinger v. National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 399, 410.)1
Broadly speaking, the doctrine applies “ ‘[w]hen an injured person has
several legal remedies and, reasonably and in good faith, pursues one.’ ” (Elkins
v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 414, quoting Myers v. County of Orange (1970)
6 Cal.App.3d 626, 634.) Thus, it may apply where one action stands to lessen the
harm that is the subject of a potential second action; where administrative
remedies must be exhausted before a second action can proceed; or where a first
1
That power is as old as the Republic. In 1870, the United States Supreme
Court, announcing it “to be established, that the running of a Statute of Limitation
may be suspended by causes not mentioned in the statute itself,” traced the history
of courts’ declaring nonstatutory exceptions to statutes of limitations back to the
Revolutionary War. (Braun v. Sauerwein (1870) 77 U.S. 218, 222-223.)
6
action, embarked upon in good faith, is found to be defective for some reason.
(See Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 917, 923.)
Its application in such circumstances serves “the need for harmony and the
avoidance of chaos in the administration of justice.” (Olson v. County of
Sacramento (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 958, 965.) Tolling eases the pressure on parties
“concurrently to seek redress in two separate forums with the attendant danger of
conflicting decisions on the same issue.” (Ibid.; see also Elkins v. Derby, supra,
12 Cal.3d at pp. 419-420; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at
p. 926.) By alleviating the fear of claim forfeiture, it affords grievants the
opportunity to pursue informal remedies, a process we have repeatedly
encouraged. (E.g., Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1091;
Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 820-821.) The tolling
doctrine does so without compromising defendants’ significant “interest in being
promptly apprised of claims against them in order that they may gather and
preserve evidence” because that notice interest is satisfied by the filing of the first
proceeding that gives rise to tolling. (Elkins, at pp. 417-418; see also Collier, at
pp. 925-926.) Lastly, tolling benefits the court system by reducing the costs
associated with a duplicative filing requirement, in many instances rendering later
court proceedings either easier and cheaper to resolve or wholly unnecessary.
(See Elkins, at p. 420; Collier, at p. 926.)
B. Equitable Tolling and Administrative Remedies
We deal here with the strand of equitable tolling arising from pursuit of an
alternate administrative remedy. Where exhaustion of an administrative remedy is
mandatory prior to filing suit, equitable tolling is automatic: “It has long been
settled in this and other jurisdictions that whenever the exhaustion of
administrative remedies is a prerequisite to the initiation of a civil action, the
7
running of the limitations period is tolled during the time consumed by the
administrative proceeding.” (Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 414; cf. Code
Civ. Proc., § 356 [tolling applies whenever commencement of an action is
statutorily prohibited].) This rule prevents administrative exhaustion requirements
from rendering illusory nonadministrative remedies contingent on exhaustion.
That tolling principle is not dispositive here. Recently, in Schifando v. City
of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at page 1092, we held exhaustion of internal
administrative remedies prior to filing a FEHA claim is not mandatory. Based on
that holding, the District argues equitable tolling should not apply in this case.
However, we also settled more than 30 years ago the further principle that
equitable tolling may extend even to the voluntary pursuit of alternate remedies.
In Campbell v. Graham-Armstrong (1973) 9 Cal.3d 482, we noted that “[t]he
exhaustion of administrative remedies will suspend the statute of limitations even
though no statute makes it a condition of the right to sue.” (Id. at p. 490 (lead opn.
of McComb, J.), italics added.) We declined to toll the limitations period on the
plaintiffs’ wage claims for the period during which they were pursuing voluntary
internal administrative remedies only because the plaintiffs had failed to make an
adequate record in the trial court. (Ibid.)
The next year, in Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d 410, we elaborated on
the principle in the context of a statute of limitations defense to a worker’s
personal injury suit. The worker had initially filed a workers’ compensation
claim; after it was determined in administrative proceedings that the worker did
not qualify as an employee, he promptly filed a tort action. The defendants raised
the statute of limitations, arguing that the worker could have started with the tort
action or filed tort and workers’ compensation claims simultaneously. (Id. at
p. 414.)
8
We rejected the assertion that equitable tolling should be limited to cases in
which a plaintiff was required to pursue a particular alternate remedy before
initiating suit and instead espoused “the principle that regardless of whether the
exhaustion of one remedy is a prerequisite to the pursuit of another, if the
defendant is not prejudiced thereby, the running of the limitations period is tolled.”
(Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 414.) After canvassing the various
precedents that supported this conclusion, we articulated the sound policy reasons
that justified it. The filing of an administrative claim, whether mandated or not,
affords a defendant notice of the claims against it so that it may gather and
preserve evidence, and thereby satisfies the principal policy behind the statute of
limitations. (Id. at pp. 417-418.) Both courts and legislatures have, and should,
“liberally appl[y] tolling rules or their functional equivalents to situations in which
the plaintiff has satisfied the notification purpose of a limitations statute.” (Id. at
p. 418.) Failing to afford plaintiffs equitable tolling in these circumstances would
both create procedural traps for the unwary (id. at p. 419) and encourage
duplicative filings, with attendant burdens on plaintiffs, defendants, and the court
system (id. at p. 420).
Completing this trilogy, in Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d
313, we confirmed that equitable tolling applies equally to the voluntary pursuit of
alternate remedies against public defendants. We reiterated that this court “ ‘is not
powerless to formulate rules of procedure where justice demands it. Indeed, it has
shown itself ready to adapt rules of procedure to serve the ends of justice where
technical forfeitures would unjustifiably prevent a trial on the merits.’ ” (Id. at pp.
318-319, quoting Bollinger v. National Fire Ins. Co., supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 410.)
Thus, we could announce “general equitable [rules] which operate[] independently
of the literal wording of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Addison, at p. 318.)
Concerning our judicially created equitable tolling rule, we clarified that it
9
required a showing of three elements: “timely notice, and lack of prejudice, to the
defendant, and reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” (Id.
at p. 319; accord, Downs v. Department of Water & Power (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th
1093, 1100; Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at pp. 924-926.)2
The defendants in Addison nevertheless argued equitable tolling should not
apply to actions against public entities. We found no basis for any such global
exception and rejected the assertion. We acknowledged that “[a]s with other
general equitable principles, application of the equitable tolling doctrine requires a
balancing of the injustice to the plaintiff occasioned by the bar of his claim against
the effect upon the important public interest or policy expressed by the [operative]
limitations statute.” (Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 321.)
But given the clear notice the defendants had received of the plaintiffs’ claims and
the minimal prejudice occasioned by any delay, we struck that balance in favor of
allowing the plaintiffs to proceed. (Ibid.)
2
The Courts of Appeal in Downs and Collier have accurately described these
requirements in more detail: “ ‘The timely notice requirement essentially means
that the first claim must have been filed within the statutory period.
Furthermore[,] the filing of the first claim must alert the defendant in the second
claim of the need to begin investigating the facts which form the basis for the
second claim. Generally this means that the defendant in the first claim is the
same one being sued in the second.’ (Collier v. City of Pasadena, supra, 142
Cal.App.3d at p. 924.) ‘The second prerequisite essentially translates to a
requirement that the facts of the two claims be identical or at least so similar that
the defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put him in a position to fairly
defend the second.’ (Id. at p. 925.) ‘The third prerequisite of good faith and
reasonable conduct on the part of the plaintiff is less clearly defined in the cases.
But in Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313[,] the Supreme Court
did stress that the plaintiff filed his second claim a short time after tolling ended.’
(Id. at p. 926.)” (Downs v. Department of Water & Power, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1100.)
10
Having thus firmly established these principles, we have only rarely had
need to revisit them. (See Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v. Superior Court
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 674, 690-691 [concluding equitable tolling should apply to the
one-year Ins. Code, § 2071 limitations period while insured is awaiting insurer’s
approval or denial of a claim]; Jones v. Tracy School Dist. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 99,
107-109 [holding equitable tolling applies to the two-year limitations period for
Lab. Code, § 1197.5 wage discrimination claim while plaintiff pursues related
federal Fair Labor Standards Act claim].) However, numerous Courts of Appeal
have extended the principles’ application to a range of scenarios in which parties
pursued nonmandatory alternate procedures. (See, e.g., Marcario v. County of
Orange (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 397, 407-409 [equitable tolling applies during
pursuit of internal labor grievance procedure]; Downs v. Department of Water &
Power, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1101-1102 [equitable tolling applies during
pursuit of title VII complaint with the EEOC]; Nichols v. Canoga Industries
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 956, 963 [equitable tolling applies during pursuit of breach
of warranty action in federal court].)
Contrary to the District’s argument, our decision in Schifando v. City of Los
Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th 1074, casts no doubt on the established availability of
equitable tolling during pursuit of voluntary alternate remedies. There, we
concluded internal administrative remedies such as those the City of Los Angeles
provided for resolving employment grievances are optional and need not be
exhausted before filing a FEHA action. If an aggrieved party, however,
voluntarily elects to pursue such an administrative remedy, it does not follow from
this that the voluntariness of that election renders equitable tolling unavailable.
Indeed, in Schifando itself we “recognize[d] the existence of potential procedural
issues that might arise in the situation where an employee chooses to pursue both
avenues of redress” (Schifando, at p. 1092), but acknowledged “those issues
11
[were] not before us” (ibid.). Schifando thus has nothing to say on the question of
equitable tolling’s applicability, which is instead resolved by reference to our
precedents expressly establishing its availability even when exhaustion of a
particular remedy is not required.
C. The California Community Colleges’ Internal Grievance
Procedures
The internal remedy Brown pursued here offers precisely the sorts of
benefits equitable tolling is designed to preserve and accordingly may support
equitable tolling in an appropriate case.
The procedures provided for by California Code of Regulations, title 5,
section 59300 et seq. were intended to ensure community college compliance with
state and federal prohibitions against unlawful discrimination. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 5, §§ 59300, 59304.) They require investigation of any formal written
complaint filed with the Chancellor’s Office or the designated officer for the
affected community college district. (Id., § 59328.) When the Chancellor’s Office
receives an employment discrimination complaint, it must forward that complaint
to the community college district for investigation and advise the complainant of
his or her right to also pursue a FEHA complaint with the DFEH. (Id., § 59329.)
In turn, the community college district must conduct an “impartial fact-finding
investigation” and prepare a written report summarizing its investigation and
findings. (Id., § 59334.) Within 90 days of receipt of a complaint, it must provide
that report to the Chancellor’s Office and advise both the Chancellor and the
complainant of its findings, the proposed resolution, the steps taken (if any) to
prevent future reoccurrence of similar problems, and the complainant’s appeal
rights. (Id., § 59336.) Dissatisfied complainants may appeal to the community
college district governing board and thereafter (in nonemployment discrimination
cases) to the Chancellor’s Office. (Id., §§ 59338, 59339.)
12
In all cases, whether or not a complainant has appealed to the Chancellor’s
Office, the Chancellor ultimately must review the community college district’s
report and decision and determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe the
district has committed a violation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 59350.) If so, it must
conduct an investigation. (Id., § 59352.) That investigation may lead to either an
informal resolution (id., § 59354) or a formal resolution, including, if necessary, a
full evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (Gov.
Code, §§ 11500-11529) and subsequent judicial review (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5,
§§ 59356, 59358). In the event the Chancellor determines the community college
district has committed a violation, he or she has authority to remedy the violation
by any lawful means, including but not limited to withholding funds, imposing
conditions on receipt of future funding, or seeking a court order. (Id., § 59360.)
These procedures thus afford a complainant and the community college
district a full opportunity to formally or informally resolve a dispute in a way that
will, in many cases, minimize or eliminate entirely the need for further judicial
proceedings. Equitable tolling during pursuit of this internal remedy affords all
the benefits that we have generally recognized justify tolling; conversely, nothing
about the voluntary nature of the procedures diminishes the benefits of tolling
here. Accordingly, following the long line of settled authority approving equitable
tolling during the voluntary pursuit of alternate remedies, we reject the District’s
argument that the voluntary character of the internal proceedings here bars tolling.
II. The Interplay Between the FEHA and Equitable Tolling
A. Statutes of Limitations and Equitable Tolling
Though the doctrine of equitable tolling is judicially created and operates
independently of the literal wording of most statutes of limitations, it is not
immune to the operation of such statutes. In Lantzy v. Centex Homes, supra, 31
13
Cal.4th 363, we discussed at length the circumstances in which a court should
conclude equitable tolling does not apply to a particular statute of limitations.
First, the Legislature may, if it so chooses, expressly negate application of
equitable tolling to a limitations period by specifying that the list of tolling bases a
statute of limitations contains is exhaustive. We gave as examples in Lantzy Code
of Civil Procedure sections 340.6 and 366.2, each of which contains such a
provision. (See Lantzy v. Centex Homes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 371.)
Second, even in the absence of an explicit prohibition, a court may
conclude that either the text of a statute or a manifest legislative policy underlying
it cannot be reconciled with permitting equitable tolling. (See Lantzy v. Centex
Homes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 371.) In Lantzy, for example, we concluded the
“structure and tone” of the text of Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15
suggested equitable tolling should not apply. (Lantzy, at p. 373.) The sheer length
of the limitations period in question — 10 years — likewise suggested a
legislative intent to preclude equitable tolling. (Id. at p. 379.) Perhaps of greatest
significance, however, the legislative history reflected a clear intent to adopt a
statute of limitations that would curtail the “indefinite ‘long tail’ defect liability”
that made it difficult for participants in the construction industry to obtain
affordable insurance. (Id. at pp. 374-376; see also Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter &
Hadden, LLP (2007) 42 Cal.4th 503, 509-511 [where limitations period was
intended to curtail specific insurance problems in an industry arising from open-
ended liability, statute should be interpreted in favor of limited tolling].)
Application of equitable tolling to periods during which a defendant was making
repairs would, we concluded, fundamentally compromise that legislative intent, a
consideration that outweighed any corresponding harm to the plaintiffs arising
from foreclosure of their claims. (Lantzy, at pp. 378-379.)
14
The further question, then, is whether anything in the FEHA itself stands as
a bar to application of the usual rule that limitations periods are tolled while a
party pursues an alternate remedy. As we shall discuss, we conclude there is
neither an express limit on grounds for tolling, nor, as in Lantzy, a textual or
legislative-intent-based rationale that would compel us to decline to extend the
usual rule to FEHA claims. Accordingly, FEHA claims may be equitably tolled
during the voluntary pursuit of alternate remedies.
B. The FEHA and Equitable Tolling
The FEHA3 affords California employees broad protection against
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on any of a wide range of
impermissible bases. (§§ 12920, 12921, 12940; Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d
65, 72-73.) Employees who believe they have been discriminated against
generally have one year in which to file an administrative complaint with the
DFEH, the agency charged with administering the FEHA. (§ 12960, subd. (d);
Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 492.) The DFEH is
obligated to investigate each complaint and decide whether to file an accusation.
(§§ 12963, 12965, subd. (a).) If it has not filed an accusation within 150 days, it
must offer the employee a right-to-sue letter on request; if it has not filed an
accusation within one year, it must issue the employee a right-to-sue letter as a
matter of right. (§ 12965, subd. (b).) Exhaustion of these procedures is
mandatory; an employee may not proceed in court with a FEHA claim without
first obtaining a right-to-sue letter. (Romano, at p. 492.)
Section 12960, subdivision (d), the governing statute of limitations for this
administrative process, provides in part: “No [DFEH] complaint may be filed
3
All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Government Code.
15
after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful
practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.” It then identifies four exceptions: (1) a
90-day extension in instances of delayed discovery of the unlawful practice; (2) a
one-year extension in certain instances of delayed discovery of the identity of the
actual employer; (3) a one-to-three-year extension for Ralph Hate Crimes Act
(Civ. Code, § 51.7) violations in cases of delayed discovery of the perpetrator’s
identity; and (4) an extension to one year after an aggrieved party achieves the age
of majority if the misconduct occurred while the party was a minor (§ 12960,
subd. (d)(1)-(4)). We discern in this provision no basis for limiting the application
of equitable tolling.
First, the statute does not include an express limit on the bases for tolling.
While section 12960, subdivision (d) lists some bases for extending the statute of
limitations, it does not indicate the list is exhaustive. The statute is thus unlike
those statutes that contain exclusivity language and that courts have interpreted as
confining tolling to specific listed bases. (See, e.g., Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2
Cal.4th 606, 618 [holding Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, which “states that ‘in no
event’ shall the prescriptive period be tolled except under those circumstances
specified in the statute,” disallows tolling otherwise]; Battuello v. Battuello (1998)
64 Cal.App.4th 842, 847 [recognizing Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2, which bars tolling
“for any reason except as provided” therein, may not otherwise be tolled].) We
have never previously concluded that the legislative codification of particular
tolling bases, alone, establishes a legislative intent to preclude tolling on any other
basis. To the contrary, we have implicitly assumed that the Legislature’s authority
to declare tolling bases (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 351-356) and the courts’
16
ability to do likewise may coexist in the absence of an explicit legislative directive
that they may not (see Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 420, fn. 9).4
Second, nothing in the text of the FEHA suggests an implicit legislative
intent to preclude equitable tolling. Unlike Code of Civil Procedure section
337.15, the 10-year limitations period at issue in Lantzy v. Centex Homes, supra,
31 Cal.4th 363, the limitations period here (one year) is quite brief. It is thus
typical of the short limitations periods to which we and the Courts of Appeal have
consistently extended equitable tolling principles.5
Third, we discern no fundamental policy underlying the FEHA that would
dictate we categorically foreclose equitable tolling in all FEHA cases. To the
contrary, we have explained that the express provisions of the FEHA evince a
legislative intent that it and its statute of limitations must be liberally interpreted in
favor of both allowing attempts at reconciliation and ultimately resolving claims
on the merits. Section 12993, subdivision (a) requires that “the provisions of [the
FEHA] shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of [its] purposes.”
4
Nor is this a situation where the Legislature has spoken to a particular basis
for tolling but elected to limit the extent of tolling available. (See, e.g., Williams
v. City of Belvedere (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 84, 92-93 [because § 12960 limits
tolling for delayed discovery to 90 days, courts may not substitute a longer
period].) Section 12960 is silent on the subject of equitable tolling during the
pendency of related administrative proceedings.
5
See, e.g., Prudential-LMI Com. Insurance v. Superior Court, supra, 51
Cal.3d 674 (one-year insurance claim limitations period); Jones v. Tracy School
Dist., supra, 27 Cal.3d 99 (two-year back wages limitations period); Addison v.
State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313 (six-month Tort Claims Act limitations
period); Elkins v. Derby, supra, 12 Cal.3d 410 (one-year personal injury
limitations period); Marcario v. County of Orange, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th 397
(two-year intentional infliction of emotional distress limitations period); Barth v.
Board of Pension Commissioners (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 826, 832-833 (one-year
disability pension application limitations period).
17
“This liberal construction extends to interpretations of the FEHA’s statute of
limitations: ‘In order to carry out the purpose of the FEHA to safeguard the
employee’s right to hold employment without experiencing discrimination, the
limitations period set out in the FEHA should be interpreted so as to promote the
resolution of potentially meritorious claims on the merits.’ ” (Richards v. CH2M
Hill, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 819, quoting Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc.,
supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 493-494; see also Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005)
36 Cal.4th 1028, 1057.)
In Romano, we concluded this rule of liberal interpretation favored
selecting as the trigger date for the FEHA’s statute of limitations the one that
would maximize the likelihood of informal employer-employee reconciliation and
minimize the need for premature litigation. (Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc.,
supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 494-495.) In Richards, we concluded this rule favored
adoption of a continuing violation rule that would permit employees to seek
informal accommodation of their disabilities without risking forfeiture of their
right to seek legal recourse in the event accommodations were not forthcoming.
(Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 820-821.)6 And in
Yanowitz, we concluded the rule of liberal interpretation supported extending the
continuing violation doctrine to retaliation cases in order to (again) promote
informal resolutions and reduce unnecessary, premature litigation. (Yanowitz v.
L’Oreal USA, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1057-1059.)
6
Notably, we recognized that the continuing violation doctrine we were
adopting had its roots in principles of equitable tolling. (See Richards v. CH2M
Hill, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 823 [describing the modified Berry v. Board of
Sup’rs of L.S.U. (5th Cir. 1983) 715 F.2d 971 test we adopted]; id. at pp. 813-814
[explaining the roots of Berry and other continuing violation tests in equitable
tolling principles].)
18
Here, the same legislative policy favoring liberal construction of the statute
of limitations supports an interpretation of the FEHA under which the limitations
period is equitably tolled while the employee and employer pursue resolution of
any grievance through an internal administrative procedure. Tolling promotes
resort to such procedures; if at least some percentage of grievances is thereby
resolved, the number of complaints under the FEHA is reduced; and for those that
are pursued under the FEHA, tolling increases the likelihood that those
“potentially meritorious claims” will in fact be resolved “on the merits,” as
Richards and Romano urge. (Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., supra, 26 Cal.4th at
p. 819; Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 493-494.)
In discerning whether equitable tolling is consistent with the Legislature’s
goals under the FEHA, we find telling two additional pieces of history. First, on
the one previous occasion that a state court in a published decision applied
equitable tolling to a FEHA plaintiff’s pursuit of an alternate remedy, the
Legislature expressly embraced that holding. In 1997, a Court of Appeal
concluded equitable tolling should apply during the period in which an employee’s
discrimination charge was being handled by the EEOC. (Downs v. Department of
Water & Power, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1093.) The plaintiff had filed a charge of
discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq.); pursuant to a work-sharing agreement under which the EEOC and the
DFEH shared investigation of discrimination charges, the EEOC automatically
forwarded a copy of the charge to the DFEH, and the DFEH automatically (and
immediately) issued a right-to-sue-letter. The EEOC conducted an investigation
and issued its own right-to-sue letter; less than three months later (but more than
one year after receiving the DFEH’s right-to-sue letter), the plaintiff filed suit
under the FEHA. (Downs, at pp. 1097-1098.)
19
The Court of Appeal reversed a defense judgment entered on statute of
limitations grounds. It reviewed at length both the requirements for equitable
tolling and the policies underlying the doctrine and concluded it should apply
under these circumstances to the plaintiff’s FEHA claim. (Downs v. Department
of Water & Power, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1100-1102.) Tolling would avoid
duplicative actions and avoid the need for a state action that might be rendered
redundant or moot depending on the EEOC’s resolution of the charge, at no
additional burden to a defendant who, by virtue of the EEOC’s investigation,
would have notice of the charges. (Id. at p. 1102.) Accordingly, the Downs court
held the timely filing of a charge with the EEOC would result in tolling the statute
of limitations during the pendency of the EEOC’s investigation. (Ibid.; see also
Salgado v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (9th Cir. 1987) 823 F.2d 1322, 1326 [applying
California law and reaching the same conclusion], disapproved on other grounds
in Rojo v. Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 82.)
The Legislature took note. Far from repudiating Downs, it embraced it,
amending section 12965 to expressly adopt the Downs equitable tolling rule.
(§ 12965, subds. (d), (e), added by Stats. 2002, ch. 294, § 1; see § 12965, subd.
(d)(3) [“This subdivision is intended to codify the holding in Downs v.
Department of Water and Power of City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th
1093”]; Assem. Com. on Judiciary, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1146
(2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 14, 2002, p. 3 [citing with approval
courts’ reasoning that equitable tolling of FEHA filing deadlines “advances
administrative efficiency and does not disadvantage the defendant; because tolling
continues only so long as the federal administrative process continues, defendants
are not confronted with stale claims or deprived of the opportunity to preserve
appropriate evidence”].)
20
Second, when a different Court of Appeal rejected application of equitable
tolling as a basis for extending the time in which a minor plaintiff could file a
complaint with the DFEH, the Legislature had precisely the opposite reaction: it
amended the FEHA to repudiate the Court of Appeal’s decision. In Balloon v.
Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1120-1122, the Court of Appeal
concluded section 12960 was not tolled during the plaintiff’s minority. The
Legislature thereafter amended section 12960 to expressly add minority as a basis
for tolling. (§ 12960, subd. (d)(4), added by Stats. 2005, ch. 642, § 1; see Sen.
Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No.
1669 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 13, 2005, pp. 2-3 [indicating intent
to change the state of the law as then set out in Balloon].)
From these disparate responses, we infer that the Legislature accepts
equitable tolling under the FEHA, including during the period when an aggrieved
party’s claims are being addressed in an alternate forum, and did not intend section
12960 to foreclose judicial acknowledgement of and application of equitable
tolling principles.
The District contends the FEHA’s preemption provisions (§ 12993,
subds. (a)-(c)) require us to interpret section 12960 as foreclosing judicial
equitable tolling. In particular, the District relies on section 12993, subdivision
(c), which provides in relevant part: “[I]t is the intention of the Legislature to
occupy the field of regulation of discrimination in employment and housing
encompassed by the provisions of this part, exclusive of all other laws banning
discrimination in employment and housing by any city, city and county, county, or
other political subdivision of the state.”
We are not persuaded. As we have previously explained, section 12993,
subdivision (c) speaks only to state-local relations and preempts only local laws.
(Rojo v. Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 78.) As we further held in Rojo, the FEHA
21
does not displace other state laws; in particular, it does not globally preempt
preexisting, judicially recognized, common law rules and remedies. “The general
rule is that statutes do not supplant the common law unless it appears that the
Legislature intended to cover the entire subject.” (Rojo, at p. 80.) Taken as a
whole, the preemption provisions of the FEHA evince no such intent; to the
contrary, they express quite the opposite intent. (Rojo, at p. 75 [“By expressly
disclaiming a purpose to repeal other applicable state laws (§ 12993, subd. (a)), we
believe the Legislature has manifested an intent to amplify, not abrogate, an
employee’s common law remedies for injuries relating to employment
discrimination”]; see § 12993, subd. (a) [savings clause disavowing intent to
repeal “laws of this state”].)
Accordingly, we hold the FEHA does not preclude equitable tolling during
the voluntary pursuit of internal administrative remedies.
III. Voluntary Abandonment and Equitable Tolling
As a final argument, the District contends tolling should be categorically
unavailable because Brown “voluntarily abandoned” her pursuit of her internal
grievance. This argument is supported by neither the law nor the record.
Neither we nor the Courts of Appeal have ever made equitable tolling
contingent on a plaintiff’s waiting for resolution of an alternate proceeding, not
otherwise subject to mandatory exhaustion, prior to institution of further
proceedings. To the contrary, both we and the Courts of Appeal have extended
equitable tolling even in circumstances where the plaintiff voluntarily terminated
the alternate proceeding.
Rejecting the very argument the District makes here, the Court of Appeal in
Appalachian Ins. Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at
pages 40-41, explained: “Initially, we note none of the cases applying the
22
equitable tolling doctrine have depended on whether there was a voluntary or
involuntary dismissal [of the first proceeding]. Second, the cases cited by the
respondents do not, either when read singly or together, establish a general rule
that voluntary dismissal precludes application of the equitable tolling doctrine.
Rather, these cases turn on the failure to meet the Bollinger [v. National Fire Ins.
Co., supra, 25 Cal.2d 399] criteria relating to timely notice, lack of prejudice to
the defendant and reasonable and good faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.”
In other words, voluntary abandonment does not categorically bar application of
equitable tolling, but it may be relevant to whether a plaintiff can satisfy the three
criteria for equitable tolling.
Thus, in Appalachian Ins. Co., the plaintiff filed a timely action, voluntarily
dismissed that action when a defendant removed it to federal court, and then
refiled an action outside the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal reviewed
the requirements for equitable tolling (notice, no prejudice, good faith), concluded
they were met, and applied tolling, rejecting the argument that the plaintiff’s
voluntary dismissal of the first action barred tolling. (Appalachian Ins. Co. v.
McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 40-42.)
In a similar vein, in San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. W.R. Grace &
Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1318, the plaintiff was part of a federal class action but
voluntarily opted out and filed its own state action. (Id. at pp. 1323-1324.)
Notwithstanding this voluntary withdrawal, the Court of Appeal concluded the
usual tolling factors were met and tolled the limitations period for the time during
which the plaintiff was a member of the federal proceeding. (Id. at pp. 1340-
1341.)
Our own decision in Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313, is
particularly apropos here. In Addison, the plaintiffs filed an action in federal court
that included state law claims under the federal court’s pendent jurisdiction.
23
Thereafter, facing a motion to dismiss and apparently fearing imminent dismissal
— but with the federal action still pending — the plaintiffs filed a second action in
state court alleging the same state claims. (Id. at p. 317.) Notwithstanding the
plaintiffs’ failure to wait out resolution of the first proceeding, we reviewed
whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the criteria for tolling and, because they had,
reversed the trial court’s dismissal on timeliness grounds. (Id. at pp. 319-321.)
Here, the summary judgment record shows a similar sequence of events.
Brown filed one proceeding with the Chancellor’s Office, then filed a second
proceeding with the DFEH while her internal grievance was still pending. This
cannot fairly be characterized as a voluntary “abandonment” of the first
proceeding; Brown neither withdrew her original complaint nor otherwise elected
to forgo relief in the first proceeding, and ultimately the Chancellor ruled on her
internal grievance. As in Addison v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d 313, we
conclude filing a second complaint before the first is finally resolved does not
categorically preclude tolling, provided the criteria for tolling we set out there are
otherwise satisfied.
There are sound reasons for declining to draw any categorical distinction
between internal procedures that have been completed and those that have not. On
the one hand, to require categorically that only completed procedures may support
equitable tolling would encourage potential defendants with control over such
procedures to drag their feet as a way of forestalling a potential DFEH complaint.
On the other hand, any fear potential defendants may have about grievants
injecting delay into the process by initiating internal procedures with no intention
of finishing them is already met by our requirement that, in order to obtain the
benefit of equitable tolling, plaintiffs must demonstrate, inter alia, that their pursuit
of an internal remedy was in good faith and that defendants would not be
prejudiced.
24
Without addressing our or the Courts of Appeal’s contrary precedents, the
District nevertheless contends equitable tolling should extend only to cases where
a plaintiff exhausts whatever alternate proceeding he or she initiates. In making
this quasi-exhaustion argument, the District relies principally on Page v. Los
Angeles County Probation Dept. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1135. This reliance is
misplaced.
Our exhaustion doctrine comes in two forms: administrative and judicial.
Administrative exhaustion refers to the requirement that a party initiate, and
complete, a particular administrative proceeding before being permitted to proceed
in court. The FEHA’s administrative complaint procedure provides a clear
example of one such administrative exhaustion requirement. In contrast, however,
we have held that initiation and completion of internal administrative proceedings
like the one here is not a condition precedent to the filing of a FEHA claim.
(Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1092.)
Judicial exhaustion is slightly different. It may arise when a party initiates
and takes to decision an administrative process — whether or not the party was
required, as a matter of administrative exhaustion, to even begin the administrative
process in the first place. Once a decision has been issued, provided that decision
is of a sufficiently judicial character to support collateral estoppel, respect for the
administrative decisionmaking process requires that the prospective plaintiff
continue that process to completion, including exhausting any available judicial
avenues for reversal of adverse findings. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000)
24 Cal.4th 61, 69-72.) Failure to do so will result in any quasi-judicial
administrative findings achieving binding, preclusive effect and may bar further
relief on the same claims. (Id. at p. 76.)
Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Dept., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th 1135,
is a judicial exhaustion case. There, the plaintiff elected to pursue her
25
discrimination claim before a civil service commission, which held numerous
hearings and ultimately entered an adverse ruling. Rather than challenge the
ruling through available judicial avenues, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the
DFEH. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust her
judicial remedies by not seeking mandamus, the civil service commission’s
findings were binding until set aside, and those findings barred her FEHA
complaint from going forward. (Page, at pp. 1143-1144.)
No similar judicial exhaustion argument applies here. The administrative
proceedings in this case lacked the judicial characteristics we have held essential
to according administrative findings collateral estoppel effect, including but not
limited to testimony under oath, the opportunity to call witnesses and introduce
evidence, and a formal record of the hearing. (See Pacific Lumber Co. v. State
Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921, 944; People v. Sims (1982)
32 Cal.3d 468, 479-480; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, §§ 59328-59350.) There was no
evidentiary hearing. In the absence of quasi-judicial proceedings, Brown was not
required to seek judicial relief to set aside any findings or bear the consequences
of their binding effect. (See Ahmadi-Kashani v. Regents of University of
California (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 449, 461 [holding FEHA claim not barred
under judicial exhaustion where internal grievance proceeding lacked sufficient
judicial character to support collateral estoppel]; cf. Johnson v. City of Loma
Linda, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 71 & fn. 3 [applying judicial exhaustion where the
plaintiff conceded he was afforded “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” his
claim at an evidentiary hearing]; id. at pp. 78-81 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.)
26
[explaining judicial exhaustion as an offshoot of the collateral estoppel
consequences of quasi-judicial administrative findings].)7
Moreover, as Page itself recognized, issues of judicial (or administrative)
exhaustion and equitable tolling are distinct. (See Page v. Los Angeles County
Probation Dept., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143.) A complaint may be timely
on grounds of equitable tolling but fail for reasons of judicial exhaustion, or a
complainant may exhaust available judicial review procedures only to find a
subsequent complaint time-barred. One inquiry has little bearing on the other.8
Page and principles of judicial exhaustion give us no occasion to reconsider our
rule that at least with respect to a defense of untimeliness, incomplete alternate
proceedings may suffice to support equitable tolling and avoid a time bar.
CONCLUSION
The trial court rejected equitable tolling on the apparent ground that tolling
was unavailable where, as here, the plaintiff was advised the alternate
administrative procedure he or she was pursuing was voluntary and need not be
exhausted. In reversing summary judgment, the Court of Appeal implicitly
concluded equitable tolling is in fact available in such circumstances and explicitly
concluded equitable tolling is not foreclosed as a matter of law under the FEHA.
The Court of Appeal was correct on each count.
7
We have no occasion to determine whether judicial exhaustion could ever
stand as a bar following proceedings under California Code of Regulations, title 5,
section 59328 et seq. We conclude only that the proceedings here were
insufficient to support such an argument.
8
As noted above, however, voluntary abandonment of a proceeding can be
considered by a court in evaluating whether a complainant’s pursuit of an alternate
remedy has been, as it must be, reasonable and in good faith. (See Addison v.
State of California, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 319.)
27
Reviewing the summary judgment record de novo, the Court of Appeal
identified evidence in the record providing a basis for equitable tolling from
October 2001 to May 2003 and accordingly concluded the District had failed to
establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on statute of limitations
grounds. The District did not seek, and we did not grant, review of this latter
conclusion concerning application of equitable tolling principles to the specific
factual record in this case.
Accordingly, because the Court of Appeal correctly determined equitable
tolling was not barred as a matter of law, we affirm the Court of Appeal’s
judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WERDEGAR, J.
WE CONCUR:
GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD, J.
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
28
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District
__________________________________________________________________________________
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 151 Cal.App.4th 961
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________
Opinion No.
S153964Date Filed: October 27, 2008
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court:
SuperiorCounty: Los Angeles
Judge: William F. Highberger
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Appellant:
Christopher Brizzolara; Goldberg & Gage, Bradley C. Gage; Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith, GregoryW. Smith; Benedon & Serlin, Douglas G. Benedon and Gerald M. Serlin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys for Respondent:
Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont, Steven J. Rothans, Jill W. Babington and Justin Reade Sarno for Defendantand Respondent.
Latham & Watkins and Joel E. Krischer for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent.
Sidley Austin, James M. Harris, Jennifer Altfeld Landau and David R. Carpenter for League of California
Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Douglas G. BenedonBenedon & Serlin
21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1290
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
(818) 340-1950
Justin Reade Sarno
Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont
888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1960
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 482-5316
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a summary judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issue: In an employment discrimination action, is the one year statute of limitations for filing an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing set forth in Government Code section 12960 subject to equitable tolling while the employee pursues an internal administrative remedy, such as a complaint with the community college chancellor filed pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 59300 et seq.?
| Date: | Citation: | Docket Number: | Category: | Status: |
| Mon, 10/27/2008 | 45 Cal. 4th 88, 194 P.3d 1026, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 734 | S153964 | Review - Civil Appeal | closed; remittitur issued |
| 1 | Antelope Valley Community College District (Defendant and Respondent) Represented by Steven Joseph Rothans Carpenter Rothans & Dumont, LLP 888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1960 Los Angeles, CA |
| 2 | Antelope Valley Community College District (Defendant and Respondent) Represented by Jill Williams Babington Carpenter Rothans & Dumont, LLP 888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1960 Los Angeles, CA |
| 3 | Antelope Valley Community College District (Defendant and Respondent) Represented by Justin Reade Sarno Carpenter Rothans & Dumont, LLP 888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1960 Los Angeles, CA |
| 4 | Mcdonald, John (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Gregory Wayne Smith Law Offices of Gregory W. Smith 9952 Santa Monica Boulevard, 1st Floor Beverly Hills, CA |
| 5 | Mcdonald, John (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Douglas G. Benedon Benedon & Serlin 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1290 Woodland Hills, CA |
| 6 | Mcdonald, John (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Christopher Brizzolara Attorney at Law 1528 Sixteenth Street Santa Monica, CA |
| 7 | Mcdonald, John (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Gerald M. Serlin Benedon & Serlin 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1290 Woodland Hills, CA |
| 8 | Brown, Sylvia (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Bradley C. Gage Goldberg & Gage 23002 Victory Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA |
| 9 | Brown, Sylvia (Plaintiff and Appellant) Represented by Douglas G. Benedon Benedon & Serlin 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1290 Woodland Hills, CA |
| 10 | Regents Of The University Of California (Opinion Modification Requestor) Represented by Paul D. Fogel Reed, Smith, LLP 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA |
| Disposition | |
| Dec 31 1969 | Opinion: Affirmed with directions |
| Dockets | |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received premature petition for review Antelope Valley Community College District, Respondent by Steven J. Rothans, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Case start: Petition for review filed |
| Dec 31 1969 | Record requested |
| Dec 31 1969 | 2nd record request |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received Court of Appeal record |
| Dec 31 1969 | Petition for review granted; issues limited (civil case) Petition for review GRANTED. The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Is the one year statute of limitations for filing an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing set forth in Government Code section 12960 subject to equitable tolling while the employee pursues an internal administrative remedy, such as a complaint with the community college chancellor filed pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 59300 et seq.? Votes: George, C.J., Baxter, Werdegar Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received Court of Appeal record |
| Dec 31 1969 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed counsel for Antelope Valley community College District, respondent Attorney Steven J Rothans |
| Dec 31 1969 | Filed: Letter from Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, Deputy City Attorney |
| Dec 31 1969 | Certification of interested entities or persons filed McDonald et al, appellants Gregory W. Smith, Counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Opening brief on the merits filed Antelope Valley Community College District Attorney Steven J. Rothans |
| Dec 31 1969 | Association of attorneys filed for: McDonalds et al., appellant Gregory W. Smith and Benedon & Serlin, counsels |
| Dec 31 1969 | Association of attorneys filed for: Brown et al., appellant Christopher Brizzolara and Benedon & Serlin, counsels |
| Dec 31 1969 | Request for extension of time filed to 12.11.07 to file answer brief on the merits. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Extension of time granted On application of appellants and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time tos erve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including December 11, 2007. No further extensions are contemplated. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Answer brief on the merits filed McDonald et al, appellants Douglas G. Benedon, Counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Request for extension of time filed Antelope Valley Community College District, Respondent by Steven J. Rothans, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Extension of time granted On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits is extended to and including January 31, 2008. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) Respondent Antelope Valley Community College District Attorney Jstin Reade Sarno |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief and brief of The League of California Citites in support of respondent Antelope Valley Community College District (app/brief under same cover) |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief of Employers Group application and brief under separate cover. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Employers Group for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendant and respondent is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Amicus curiae brief filed Employers Group, in support of defendant and respondent Joel E. Krischer, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of League of California Cities for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of defendant and respondent is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Amicus curiae brief filed League of California Cities, in support of defendant and respondent James Harris, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received: change of address for Latham & Watkins attorney Joel E. Krischer |
| Dec 31 1969 | Case ordered on calendar to be argued Wednesday, September 3, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received: Additional authorities re oral argument Sylvia Brown, plaintiff and appellant Douglas Benedon, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Cause argued and submitted |
| Dec 31 1969 | Notice of forthcoming opinion posted |
| Dec 31 1969 | Opinion filed: Affirmed in full with directions Court of Appeal judgment affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Majority Opinion by Werdegar, J. -----joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno and Corrigan, JJ. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Request for modification of opinion filed Regents of the University of California, non-party Paul Fogel, counsel |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received: Letter from attorney Joel C. Golden re modification request. |
| Dec 31 1969 | Request for modification denied |
| Dec 31 1969 | Remittitur issued (civil case) |
| Dec 31 1969 | Note: 5 doghouses were shipped to Tommie W. at the L.A. Supreme Ct. office for delivery to CA 2/5 |
| Dec 31 1969 | Received: |
| Briefs | |
| Dec 31 1969 | Opening brief on the merits filed |
| Dec 31 1969 | Answer brief on the merits filed |
| Dec 31 1969 | Reply brief filed (case fully briefed) |
| Dec 31 1969 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Dec 31 1969 | Amicus curiae brief filed |
| Jan 9, 2009 Annotated by admin.ah | PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs John McDonald, Sylvia Brown, and Sallie Stryker filed suit against defendant Antelope Valley Community College District (the District) claiming that the District had subjected them to racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to file their claims within the statute of limitations provided by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) (FEHA) (Super. Ct. No. BC304873). The Court of Appeals affirmed as to Stryker and reversed as to McDonald and Brown, holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied and that the plaintiffs’ claims were not time-barred. (Ct.App. 2/5 B188077). FACTUAL HISTORY HOLDING AND REASONING Written by John Kimble |
| Jan 9, 2009 Annotated by diana teasland | Written by Amy Morgenstern Facts Rules Holding My Opinion |
