Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05019/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIA DELARGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05019-SI 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS AND DENYING LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 8

On December 6, 2019, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion and DENIES plaintiff 

leave to amend the complaint.

BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2019, plaintiff filed this lawsuit in pro per1against defendant Walmart in 

Alameda County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 1 (“Compl”). On August 16, 2019, defendant 

removed this case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleges four 

causes of action for violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), as well 

as a claim for wrongful termination. 

The following facts are based on the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff Demetria 

DeLarge began working as a Walmart cashier on February 20, 1999. Compl. ¶ 10. Around 2010,

she injured her shoulder; this injury made it difficult for her to use some of the cash registers, so 

 

1 Plaintiff is now represented by counsel. 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 12
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

plaintiff chose which register to operate at the beginning of her shift. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiff alleges:

On or about May 24, 2013, Plaintiff was called into the office because the New 

Market Manager Jeff (last name unknown) wanted to talk to her. The new store 

manager Jennifer Munoz was present. Jeff asked why Plaintiff she [sic] uses 

whichever cash register she wants. Plaintiff explained to both managers that she has 

a medical condition accompanied by a Doctor’s note, which required greater 

flexibility in cash register assignments. Jeff stated he did not care about the doctor’s 

note. He further explained that the home office takes care of accommodations 

requests, and that Plaintiff just needed to follow the system and not choose her own 

register. Ms. Munoz agreed and indicated that if Plaintiff went home because she 

was physically unable to work the assigned register, it would be held against her 

attendance. 

Id. ¶ 12. 

After the meeting with Jeff and Ms. Munoz, plaintiff “called Anetra Edwards, the new H.R. 

District manager, to complain about Defendant’s lack of accommodations. Ms. Edwards explained 

that she would set up a meeting, and get back to Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 13. During May and June of 2013,

plaintiff worked at registers that caused her pain, notwithstanding her repeated requests for an 

“accommodating register.” Id. ¶¶ 14-17. Plaintiff was told that she had to work at the assigned 

registers or go home, and that if she went home it would be counted against her attendance. Id. On 

or around June 4 or 6, 2013, plaintiff visited the emergency room after her shift. Id. ¶ 17. For some 

shifts between June 6 through June 17, plaintiff took time off at the request of her doctor, and on 

June 18, 2019, she filed a workers’ compensation claim. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. On June 18, she again 

requested the accommodation of working at a register that did not cause her pain. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff 

did not receive any response to her request, and on June 24, 2013, plaintiff received a letter from 

defendant informing her that she had been terminated, effective June 19, 2013. Id. ¶ 22.

In June 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and 

Housing (“DFEH”). Id. ¶ 24. The DFEH closed the complaint and issued a Right to Sue letter on 

June 12, 2015. Def’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. B (Dkt. No. 8-1).2 The Right to Sue letter 

stated, inter alia, that “DFEH is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a 

violation of the statute.” Id. The letter also stated,

 

2 The Court GRANTS the parties’ requests for judicial notice.

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 12
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

This is your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12966, 

subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair 

Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or 

employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. This is also 

applicable to DFEH complaints that are filed under, and allege a violation of, 

Government Code section 12948 . . . . The civil action must be filed within one year 

from the date of this letter. . . . 

Id., Ex. B (bold in original). The letter informed plaintiff that her complaint had been “dual filed” 

with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and that if plaintiff exercised 

her right to request the EEOC to review the DFEH’s findings, “your right to sue may be tolled during 

the pendency of EEOC’s review of your complaint.” Id. The letter also informed plaintiff,

You may file an appeal with DFEH which is a written request made to the District 

Administrator for reconsideration of the decision to close your case. Your appeal 

should include a 1) summary as to why you disagree with the reason; and/or, 2) any 

new detailed information (e.g., documents, records, witness information) that 

supports your claim. If you appeal, the information you provide will be carefully 

considered.

Id. Finally, the letter provided resources for finding an attorney in order to file a civil action, as well 

as resources for filing in small claims court. Id.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiff appealed the case closure within the DFEH, and she continued to 

contact the DFEH throughout 2016 and 2017. DeLarge Decl. ¶¶ 7-14.3 In her declaration she states, 

“My goal from the start was to get the DFEH to take my case.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff states that during 

the appeals process, a DFEH employee, Ms. Bonilla, “told me that if the DFEH determined that 

there was merit to my case they would take it on my behalf.” Id. ¶ 8. 

Plaintiff also recalls a December 2017 phone conversation with DFEH representative Brenda 

Valle. Id. ¶¶ 12-18. Plaintiff states,

12. In December 2017, Brenda Valle called me and asked if I wanted to see if the 

other side wanted to mediate; she said it was a voluntary process.

13. I indicated to Ms. Valle that I wanted to mediate and that she should ask if 

Walmart wanted to mediate.

14. During that December 2017 phone call I asked Ms. Valle if the DFEH would 

file a lawsuit, she told me they weren’t going to be able to do that, they couldn’t and 

I asked why and she said per their regulation.

 

3 Defendant objects to portions of plaintiff’s declaration (statements allegedly made by 

DFEH employees) as inadmissible hearsay. However, as discussed infra, even taking these 

statements as true, the Court finds that equitable tolling does not apply here. 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 12
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

15. I asked for that regulation and it was read to me over the phone by someone in 

the office, who said if the complaint you first filed was not investigated within a year

they can’t file a civil action.

16. I told her that since my complaint was investigated within a year and initially 

closed out, that regulation didn’t apply to my particular appeal.

17. That the DFEH supposedly could not take the case on my behalf was a complete 

surprise after all this time and Brenda Valle told me all along pretty much if the case 

was merited that the DFEH would file suit on my behalf.

18. This left me not knowing what do after being strung along and basically mislead.

Id.

Plaintiff states that at that time she still hoped to mediate with Walmart. Id. ¶ 19. On 

February 28, 2018, plaintiff contacted the DFEH to inquire about the status of her appeal. Id. ¶ 24. 

Plaintiff states that she spoke with Ms. Valle and that Ms. Valle told her that Walmart did not want 

to mediate. Id. Plaintiff states that she asked for a new Right to Sue letter, and that “Ms. Valle 

refused to issue me a new Right to Sue.” Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff asked Ms. Valle to send her 

“something in writing.” Id. ¶ 26. That same day, the DFEH issued a letter titled “Notice of Change 

in Closing Reason,” which stated, inter alia,

This letter is to inform you that the original basis for closure on the above-referenced 

complaint has been changed. Instead of being closed on the basis of Investigated and 

Dismissed – Insufficient Evidence and NJI – CP failed to cooperate, the official 

Department record will reflect that your case has been closed as Agency Discretion.

This action is being taken because the Department of Fair Employment and Housing 

(DFEH) received an appeal to the closure determination in the above-referenced 

matter. After careful review of the case file and information provided by Walmart 

(Respondent) during the investigation, DFEH has determined that there was 

sufficient evidence to support all or some of the allegation(s) set forth in the 

complaint. 

The effective date of closure will remain the date of the original letter, and the Right 

to Sue information included in that letter remains unchanged. . . . 

Def’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. D. 

After plaintiff received the February 28, 2018 letter, she continued to contact the DFEH 

about her case, including asking about pursuing further appeals within the DFEH. DeLarge Decl. 

¶¶ 29-44 (discussing communications and responses from DFEH). On May 22, 2018, in response 

to one of plaintiff’s inquiries about a further level of appeal to which plaintiff believed she was 

entitled, plaintiff received an email from the DFEH stating that there were no more appeals. Id. 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 12
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

¶ 39.4 

Plaintiff also states that “[f]rom 2017 on, I sought to get an attorney for my case in the event 

the DFEH did not ultimately take it on my behalf.” Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff states, “It is my understanding 

that a number of attorneys were particularly concerned about the 2015 Notice of Right to Sue as a 

problem they felt they could not overcome.” Id. ¶ 50. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 22, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and “the same standard of review applies to motions brought under either 

rule.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. In re Seizure of One Blue 

Nissan Skyline Auto., & One Red Nissan Skyline, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“The 

standard for assessing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard 

for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). A complaint that 

fails to do so is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c). To survive either 

motion, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires 

the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion−and Rule 12(c) motion as well−a district court must 

accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

plaintiff. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, a district 

court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted 

 

4

 According to plaintiff, at some point in 2017 or 2018, the DFEH altered its internal appeals 

process. Opp’n at 3. “[T]he DFEH apparently altered the Regulations guiding the four levels of 

internal appeals. The DFEH took away the four levels, and created only one level.” Id. 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 12
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 

(9th Cir. 2008).

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that all of plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Defendant notes that the 

DFEH issued plaintiff a right-to-sue letter on June 12, 2015, and that plaintiff did not file this lawsuit 

until May 22, 2019, far beyond the one year statute of limitations period for FEHA claims. 

Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim is untimely because it was not was 

not filed within the two year statute of limitations period for such claims. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

§ 335.1; Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, 242 Cal. App. 4th 1367, 1382 (2015). 

Plaintiff responds that the Court should apply the doctrine of equitable tolling and hold that 

FEHA’s one-year statute of limitations was tolled from July 15, 2015 until May 22, 2018, while 

plaintiff pursued the DFEH’s internal appeals process.5 Plaintiff does not make a specific argument 

as to why the limitations period for her wrongful termination claim should be equitably tolled, but 

she suggests that the same reasoning applies, namely her pursuit of the FEHA administrative appeals 

process. 

I. FEHA Claims

Prior to suing for a FEHA violation, an employee must first file a timely charge6 with the 

DFEH and receive a right-to-sue notice. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12960, 12965(b). An employee has 

one year from the date of the Right to Sue notice to file a civil lawsuit. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b); 

Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 348 F.Supp.3d 1003, 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2018). 

The judicially created doctrine of equitable tolling may extend FEHA’s statute of limitations. 

See McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 45 Cal. 4th 88, 111 (2008); Rodriguez v. 

 

5

 Plaintiff does not assert that any of the statutory exceptions providing for tolling of the 

FEHA statute of limitations apply here. 

6

 Subject to several exceptions, the charge must be filed within one year of the alleged 

unlawful act. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960.

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 12
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890, 902 (9th Cir. 2001). Courts evaluate three factors to determine 

whether a statute of limitations should be equitably tolled: (1) timely notice to defendant in filing 

the first claim; (2) lack of prejudice to defendant in gathering evidence to defend against the second 

claim; and (3) good faith and reasonable conduct by plaintiff in filing the second claim. Downs v. 

Dep’t of Water & Power, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1100 (1997). 

The first requirement—timely notice to defendant in filing the first claim—requires that the 

first claim be filed within the statutory period. Id. Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff timely 

filed her DFEH complaint within one year of her June 19, 2013 termination. 

The second requirement—lack of prejudice to the defendant—has two components: (1) the 

defendant in the first claim is the same defendant that is being sued in the second claim, and (2) the 

two claims are either identical or so similar that defendant’s investigation of the first claim will put 

him in a position to fairly defend the second claim. Downs, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 1100. It is unclear 

the extent to which defendant asserts it would be prejudiced.7 In any event, the Court finds it 

unnecessary to resolve this issue because the Court finds that plaintiff cannot establish the third 

requirement for equitable tolling, namely that plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith.

“The third prerequisite of good faith and reasonable conduct is less clearly defined in the 

cases.” Collier v. City of Pasadena, 142 Cal. App. 3d 917, 926 (1983). Courts examining the third 

requirement have considered whether the plaintiff acted diligently and whether the plaintiff misled 

the defendant into believing a second claim would not be filed (evidence of bad faith) and whether 

the plaintiff was misled by an agency about the proper filing deadlines. See id.; see also Rodriguez, 

265 F.3d at 902 (“The equities favor a discrimination plaintiff who (1) diligently pursued his claim; 

(2) was misinformed or misled by the administrative agency responsible for processing his charge; 

(3) relied in fact on the misinformation or misrepresentations of that agency, causing him to fail to 

exhaust his administrative remedies; and (4) was acting pro se at the time.”); see e.g., Collier, 142 

 

7

 Defendant first raised the issue of prejudice in its reply brief, and thus plaintiff did not 

have the opportunity to respond to those arguments in the briefing. At the hearing, defense counsel 

argued that Walmart would be prejudiced by the passage of time due to the difficulty locating 

witnesses and evidence. However, plaintiff’s counsel disputed several factual statements made by 

defense counsel regarding the DFEH investigation (including whether witness interviews were 

recorded), and the record before the Court does not include the complete DFEH file. 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 12
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cal. App. 3d at 921, 932 (holding the plaintiff’s disability claim, which was subject to 6 month 

statute of limitations, was not time-barred because it was filed within 3 months of conclusion of 

workers compensation proceeding). 

Plaintiff argues that she utilized the “DFEH’s internal appeals procedure when she felt 

DFEH made an initial incorrect decision in 2015.” Opp’n at 9. Plaintiff also asserts that she was 

misled about the DFEH’s appeals process because she was told the DFEH would file a lawsuit on 

her behalf if the DFEH concluded that her claims had merit. Plaintiff also asserts that she was 

prejudiced by the change in the DFEH’s appeals process, and that she “should have been able to go 

through the entire appellate process given she was in the middle of it in 2017 and 2018.” Opp’n at 

9. Finally, plaintiff asserts that she acted in good faith because she tried, unsuccessfully, to find a 

lawyer. 

Defendant argues that plaintiff acted unreasonably because she did not bring suit within one 

year as instructed in her right-to-sue letter. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff pursued the DFEH 

appeals process because plaintiff wanted the DFEH to initiate civil action on her behalf, even though 

DFEH regulations state the department has discretion not to file civil action when circumstances 

warrant. Defendant also notes that plaintiff does not claim that she was ever misled into thinking 

that she was required to pursue the DFEH appeals process prior to filing a lawsuit. 

The Court concludes that plaintiff has not acted reasonably, and thus that equitable tolling 

of the statute of limitations is not appropriate. As an initial matter, to the extent plaintiff relies on

McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District, 45 Cal. 4th 88 (2008), to assert that the 

limitations period should be tolled during the time her appeal was pending with the DFEH, the Court 

finds that McDonald is inapposite. In McDonald, the California Supreme Court held that in an 

appropriate case, the limitations period for a FEHA claim may be tolled “while the employee and 

employer pursue resolution of any grievance through an internal administrative procedure.” Id. at 

108. The Court explained, “Tolling promotes resort to such procedures; if at least some percentage 

of grievances is thereby resolved, the number of complaints under the FEHA is reduced; and for 

those that are pursued under the FEHA, tolling increases the likelihood that those ‘potentially 

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 8 of 12
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

meritorious claims’ will in fact be resolved ‘on the merits[.]’” Id.8 

Here, plaintiff was not pursuing an internal administrative procedure with Walmart prior to 

filing a DFEH charge, but rather seeks equitable tolling based on her pursuit of an appeal through 

the DFEH after receiving her Right to Sue letter. McDonald does not stand for the broad proposition 

that pursuing a voluntary administrative appeal after receipt of a Right to Sue letter tolls the statute 

of limitations. Further, McDonald emphasized that equitable tolling is judicially created doctrine 

that is “designed to prevent unjust and technical forfeitures of the right to a trial on the merits when 

the purpose of the statute of limitations . . . has been satisfied,” and that “the doctrine applies when 

an injured person has several legal remedies and reasonably, and in good faith, pursues one.” Id. at 

99-100 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The problem here is that plaintiff has not shown that she acted reasonably by continuing to 

pursue the DFEH appeals process for years after receiving the June 12, 2015 Right to Sue letter. 

Plaintiff does not allege or assert that she was ever misled about the need to file a lawsuit within one 

year of the Right to Sue letter, nor does she claim that she was told that an administrative appeal 

was a prerequisite to filing a civil suit. The DFEH’s Right to Sue letter clearly stated that plaintiff

had one year to file suit. While the letter also stated “[y]ou may file an appeal with DFEH,” the 

letter does not state or suggest that an appeal is required prior to filing a lawsuit, or that appealing 

will toll the limitations period. Def’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. B. In contrast, the portion of 

the letter informing plaintiff that she could seek review of the DFEH’s findings through the EEOC 

explicitly stated that “your right to sue may be tolled during the pendency of the EEOC’s review of 

your complaint.” Id.

Plaintiff asserts that she was “strung along and basically misled” during the DFEH’s appeals 

 

8 The plaintiff in McDonald alleged that her community college employer discriminated 

against her, with the last discriminatory act arguably occurring in January 2001. The plaintiff

pursued an internal community college district grievance and investigation process from October 

2001 to May 2003. See id. at 97-99. During that process, the District informed the plaintiff that she 

could file a complaint with the DFEH at any time. Id. at 97. In October 2002, while the internal 

process was pending, the plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the DFEH. She received 

a right-to-sue letter that same month, and filed her FEHA lawsuit within one year, in October 2003. 

The question in McDonald was whether the one year statute of limitations period applicable to the 

filing of the DFEH complaint could be equitably tolled during the time that she pursued the internal 

community college process. Id

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 9 of 12
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

process because she believed that the DFEH would file a lawsuit on her behalf if the DFEH 

concluded her case had merit. However, even accepting plaintiff’s account of her communications 

with the DFEH as true, by plaintiff’s own admission she knew in December 2017 that the DFEH 

would not file suit on her behalf. Plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until May 22, 2019, well over 

one year later. Indeed, even after plaintiff received the February 28, 2018 letter from the DFEH, 

which stated that “[t]he effective date of closure will remain the date of the original [right-to-sue] 

letter, and the Right to Sue information included in that letter remains unchanged,” plaintiff still 

waited over a year to file this lawsuit. Def’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. D. Cf. Collier, 142 

Cal. App. 3d at 932. 

At the hearing plaintiff’s counsel cited additional authority that was not cited in the papers. 

The Court finds that none of these cases applies. In Grant v. Comp USA, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 

637, 641 (2003), the California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had exhausted her 

administrative remedies and was not required to obtain a second right-to-sue letter after the DFEH 

rescinded the initial right-to-sue letter. Here, the issue is not whether plaintiff exhausted her 

administrative remedies but whether the statute of limitations should be tolled. Anderson v. 

American Airlines, No. C 05-04292 SI, 2006 WL 1009016, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2006), in which 

the plaintiff alleged that she had been misled by EEOC representatives as to the filing deadline, is 

inapposite because plaintiff has not alleged that the DFEH misled her as to the statute of limitations. 

Finally, Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 479, 485 (1996), holds that the limitations 

period for a FEHA claim begins to run when a plaintiff is terminated rather than when a plaintiff 

learns that she will be terminated; plaintiff’s termination date is not at issue. 

 

II. Wrongful Termination Claim 

Causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy have a two-year 

statute of limitations. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, 242 Cal. App. 

4th 1367, 1382 (2015). 

Plaintiff does not make a specific argument as to why the statute of limitations on her 

wrongful termination claim should be equitably tolled. In a footnote she states, “The McDonald

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 10 of 12
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Supreme Court explicitly ‘rejected the assertion that equitable tolling should be limited to cases in 

which a plaintiff was required to pursue a particular alternative remedy before initiating suit.’” 

Opp’n at 5 n.1. While plaintiff is correct that equitable tolling is available for a wrongful termination 

claim, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that there is no basis to apply equitable tolling 

in this case. 

III. Leave to Amend

Leave to amend may be denied if the proposed amendment would be futile. Saul v. United 

States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir.1991). Leave to amend is futile when a “complaint cannot under 

any conceivable state of facts be amended to state a claim.” Breier v. N. Cal. Bowling Proprietors’

Ass’n, 316 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir. 1963) (internal quotations omitted). 

The Court concludes that granting plaintiff leave to amend to allege additional facts in 

support of equitable tolling would be futile. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel requested leave to 

amend to allege that the statute should be tolled until May 22, 2018, when plaintiff claims she was 

told by the DFEH that there would be no further appeals. However, such an allegation (which is 

discussed in her declaration), would not support equitable tolling. Regardless of whether plaintiff 

believed any further appeals were possible, and even if there was some basis to equitably toll the 

limitations period during 2016-2017, plaintiff has declared that she was told in December 2017 that 

the DFEH would not be filing a lawsuit on her behalf, and she acknowledges receiving the DFEH’s 

February 28, 2018, Notice of Change in Closing Reason. For the reasons stated supra, it was 

unreasonable for plaintiff to wait until May 22, 2019 to file this lawsuit. 

///

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 11 of 12
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s FEHA violation and wrongful termination claims are untimely. Thus, she has not 

adequately shown that she is entitled to relief. For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05019-SI Document 15 Filed 12/12/19 Page 12 of 12