Opinion ID: 737148
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FEHA claims against Local 5

Text: 6 Plaintiffs' FEHA claims against Local 5 are time-barred. Local 5 surrendered jurisdiction over the plaintiffs when the International Association chartered Local 208 in April 1991. Thus, Local 5's unequal treatment of plaintiffs ceased once Local 208 became responsible for securing the plaintiffs' rights and privileges of union membership. Even if the plaintiffs first obtained knowledge of Local 5's alleged discriminatory acts more than one year after those acts were committed, plaintiffs were required to file complaints with the DFEH by the end of July, 1992--one year and 90 days after Local 5 surrendered jurisdiction over the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their complaints with the DFEH between August and October, 1993. Thus, on their face, the plaintiffs' FEHA claims against Local 5 are time-barred. 7 The plaintiffs attempt to overcome the statute of limitations by insisting that Local 5's discriminatory membership policies continued through November 1992, when Local 208 first signed independent contracts with employers. But Local 5's representation of plaintiffs does not persist simply because Local 208 failed to sign contracts until November 1992. In any event, Local 208 did assume a representative role upon its creation in April 1991. Local 5 may have negotiated the contracts under which the plaintiffs worked until November 1992, but Local 208 began administering those contracts in July 1991: Local 208 took over dispatching responsibilities in July 1991; Local 208 dealt with day-to-day matters, such as member complaints, upon its creation; and any maintenance or hazardous waste worker who called Local 5 after July 1991 was told to call Local 208 for dispatch or other inquiries. 8 Nor can the plaintiffs' claims against Local 5 be saved by the continuing violation doctrine. California courts have recognized this doctrine as an equitable exception to FEHA's one-year statute of limitations. See Accardi v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 341, 349 (Cal.Ct.App.1993). Under the continuing violation doctrine, a complaint arising under FEHA is timely if any of the discriminatory practices continues into the limitations period. Id. (second emphasis added). The doctrine has been invoked successfully where the defendants have maintained a discriminatory employment pattern or practice into the limitations period. See Valdez, 231 Cal.App.3d at 1052 (Under the doctrine of 'continuing violations' an administrative complaint charging discrimination is timely if the discriminatory system is maintained into the limitations period.); see also Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 665 F.2d 918, 924 (9th Cir.) ([A] systematic policy of discrimination is actionable even if some or all of the events evidencing its inception occurred prior to the limitations period.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 971 (1982). The doctrine does not apply, however, where only the effect of discontinued discriminatory practices is ongoing. See Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.4th 1710, 1717 (Cal.Ct.App.1995) ([T]he proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful. (quoting Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980)). 9 In sum, Local 5's representation of the plaintiffs, and thus the segregated internal membership policies that form the gravamen of the plaintiffs' complaint against Local 5, was effectively terminated on March 24, 1991, when Local 5 elected not to retain jurisdiction over maintenance and hazardous waste workers. While the consequences of Local 5's membership policies may be experienced presently by the plaintiffs, such policies were not in force during the limitations period. Therefore, the continuing violation doctrine cannot save the plaintiffs' claims against Local 5 from the time restrictions imposed by FEHA. 10