California Supreme Court clarifies statute of limitations for FEHA claims

In Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court ruled that for claims of failure to promote brought under the harassment provision of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the employee knows, or reasonably should know, of the employer’s wrongful conduct.

Pollock involved an employee who was denied promotion despite being the most qualified candidate after refusing the sexual advances of the company’s executive vice president. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run. The ruling was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, which was ultimately reversed.

At the time this case was filed, the FEHA required that an administrative complaint be filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) within one year of the unlawful conduct. Here, the dispute centered around when the conduct occurred for the purposes of the statute of limitations. The company argued that because the employee filed her complaint with the DFEH more than a year after the job was given to another candidate, the plaintiff’s complaint was untimely. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that the FEHA statute of limitations begins to run when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the unlawful conduct. Because the plaintiff only learned she had been passed over for promotion two months after the company made its decision (when another candidate began working in the role sought by plaintiff), the claim began to accrue on the latter date, not when the company offered the position to another candidate. The plaintiff’s complaint to the DFEH was therefore considered to be timely.

The statute of limitations for harassment through failure to promote has since been extended to three years, but because the language of the statute is otherwise identical to its prior version, the Court’s ruling in Pollock should apply nonetheless.