Plaintiff, a disabled employee, appealed from a decision of the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, Sacramento County, which held that the trial court had misapplied the continuing violation doctrine to the employee’s disability harassment and discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code ยง 12900 et seq., and improperly awarded damages for injuries occurring outside the limitations period.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. understands CACI 3903
Overview
The employee developed multiple sclerosis and required wheelchair access and special accommodation after several years’ employment as a civil engineer. She sought accommodation by defendant engineering firm, resigning when it became clear that certain necessary accommodations would not be provided. She pursued the appropriate administrative remedies, and properly filed a disability harassment and discrimination action. After reviewing federal case law which developed the continuing violation doctrine, the supreme court found that neither the trial court nor the court of appeal applied the proper standard for determining a continuing violation. It held that the engineering firm’s successive failures to accommodate and successive acts of harassment over the course of four years constituted a single, actionable, continuing violation, because (1) the firm’s actions were sufficiently similar in kind; (2) the firm’s actions occurred with sufficient frequency; and (3) the employee filed suit within the one year after the firm’s actions acquired such a degree of “permanence” that the employee reasonably concluded that further efforts at informal conciliation would be futile.
Outcome
The supreme court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and directed it to remand the cause to the trial court for reconsideration of the engineering firm’s motion for a new trial on statute of limitations grounds in light of the three-pronged continuing violation test which it articulated.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff homeowners sued defendant insurer for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, fraud, and negligence. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, resolved disputed issues raised by the pleadings regarding the interpretation of the policy terms upon which coverage depended and held the policy was ambiguous and exclusions relating to damage to land and building code upgrades were invalid and unenforceable. The insurer appealed.
