Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 749
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Acuna, Hispanic, worked for SDG&E since 1979 in timekeeping; supervisor Valentine repeatedly disparaged her Hispanic background and subjected her to scrutiny and adverse treatment.
- Acuna alleged discriminatory harassment and retaliation beginning 2002–2005, including false performance criticisms and illegal timekeeping demands.
- She suffered stress-related disability, went on medical leave, and SDG&E conducted internal discrimination investigations with uncertain timelines.
- Acuna filed three DFEH complaints (Mar 16, 2006; Feb 23, 2007; Oct 23, 2008) and received right-to-sue notices on each (Mar 27, 2006; Feb 19, 2008; Nov 7, 2008).
- She was terminated July 11, 2008, amid allegations tied to 2004–2005 timekeeping issues; she disputed termination as retaliatory.
- Acuna filed suit Nov 5, 2009, asserting FEHA claims (retaliation, disability discrimination, racial harassment) and contract-related claims; court demurred, dismissing FEHA claims as time-barred except retaliation, and dismissing contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disability discrimination claim was timely | Acuna insists continuing violations tolling or timely July 2008 events. | SDG&E argues accrual and tolling did not revive due to late February 2007 notice. | Disability claim time-barred; continuing violations not applicable; second right-to-sue notice fixed accrual. |
| Whether racial discrimination claim was timely | Racial claim timely under initial complaint; could be tolled? | Racial claim untimely under 12965; no continuing violations. | Racial discrimination claim time-barred. |
| Whether retaliation claim was timely | Termination in July 2008 timely under 12960; timely under 12965 via third DFEH complaint. | Argues limitations barred by earlier notices or dates. | FEHA retaliation claim timely; accrual from termination; timely under 12960 and 12965 for the third complaint. |
| Whether wrongful termination in violation of public policy was timely | Tied to timely retaliation; should survive demurrer if retaliation timely. | Dependent on FEHA timing; if FEHA time-barred, so is public policy claim. | Wrongful termination claim viable to the extent based on timely retaliation; demurrer reversed on public policy claim related to retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2001) (continusng violations toll accrual when pattern of impairment persists)
- Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., 14 Cal.4th 479 (Cal. 1996) (accrual begins at time of actual termination for FEHA retaliation claims)
- Cucuzza v. City of Santa Clara, 104 Cal.App.4th 1031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (permanence/closure of failure to accommodate supports timeliness ruling)
- Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (extending continuing violations to retaliation claims)
- Estes v. Monroe, 120 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. App. 2004) (public policy/tort limitations tied to FEHA meaning)
- Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 880 (Cal. 1997) (treatment of statutory limitations in public policy claims)
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 (Cal. 1988) (duty of good faith and fair dealing in employment)