(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
2) With respect to acts that occurred prior to June 10, 2004 (and this would include the initial referral for a fitness-for-duty evaluation and the submission of an involuntary retirement application) the jury had evidence that these acts were sufficiently linked to a course of retaliatory and discriminatory conduct that continued into the one-year limitations period, and were thus actionable as well under the continuing violation doctrine.
3) The statute of limitations on a FEHA claim only begins to run when an alleged adverse employment action acquires some degree of permanence or finality. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal, supra, at 1058. The jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the City’s decision to send Mr.Carter to a fitness for duty evaluation and apply for an involuntary disability retirement did not acquire a degree of permanence or 22 finality until well within the one-year statutory period, and perhaps as late as the date the retirement took effect on January 20, 2005.
4) As detailed by the California Supreme Court in Romano v. Rockwell, the statute of limitations in a case like the present one is not triggered by the date on which Mr.Carter was notified of the City’s intent to terminate him (the April 26th submission of involuntary retirement papers) but rather the date of actual separation, which was January 20, 2005-a date well within the one-year limitations period. This is because of equitable tolling considerations that encourage informal conciliation. See Richards, supra, at 820.
The arguments the defendant raise in its Motion for a New Trial were rejected by the Court at the Motion in Limine Hearing, and then rejected again by the jury at trial. This is grasping at straws. (See Part 4 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.