Aviles-Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Community College Dist.
B278863
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Aviles-Rodriguez, a probationary LACCD professor, was denied tenure by a committee on November 21, 2013; the Board’s written notice issued March 5, 2014.
- His employment terminated at the end of the academic year, June 30, 2014.
- He contended the denial of tenure and resulting termination were racially discriminatory and pursued LACCD grievance procedures; final grievance denial occurred May 21, 2014.
- In May 2014 a DFEH advisor allegedly told him he had one year from his last day of employment to file; he filed an administrative DFEH complaint on June 29, 2015.
- LACCD demurred, arguing the FEHA one-year filing period began when tenure was denied (Nov. 2013); the trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding under Romano the FEHA one-year period runs from the last day of employment, so the DFEH filing was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the FEHA one-year administrative filing period begin for a denial-of-tenure claim that results in termination? | The limitations period begins on the last day of employment (termination). | The period begins when tenure is denied or when plaintiff became aware of the denial (Nov. 2013 / earlier dates). | Court applies Romano and holds the one-year period runs from last day of employment (June 30, 2014); DFEH filing (June 29, 2015) was timely. |
| Whether appellant pleaded equitable tolling based on DFEH advice | Appellant alleged he reasonably relied on DFEH advisor’s representation that he had one year from last day to file. | LACCD argued plaintiff did not plead diligent pursuit after receiving advice, so tolling fails. | Court did not reach equitable tolling because it held the claim timely under Romano; equitable tolling unnecessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romano v. Rockwell Internat., 14 Cal.4th 479 (interpretation that FEHA wrongful-termination limitations period runs from date of actual termination; criticizes Ricks and Regents)
- Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. Supreme Court holding tenure-denial claim accrues at date of notification of denial)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.4th 1710 (appellate decision treating tenure/analogous cases as accruing at notification; expressly disapproved by Romano)
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 (FEHA statutes construed liberally; statutes of limitations interpretation guided by FEHA remedial purpose)