Opinion ID: 737024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuing Violations Doctrine Applied in this Case

Text: 17 To invoke the continuing violations doctrine in her case, Gutowsky must show a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period, or the maintenance of a discriminatory system both before and during [that] period. Green v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schs., 883 F.2d 1472, 1480 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). Thus, a continuing violation may be established through a series of related acts against one individual, or by a systematic policy or practice of discrimination. Id. 18 The County asserts that the doctrine of continuing violations does not apply because Gutowsky offered insufficient evidence of such violations. The County is mistaken. Gutowsky's motion papers were replete with evidence of an ongoing practice and policy that denied opportunity to women to move into the equipment operating positions. 19 In Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757 (9th Cir.1980), we reversed a district court decision in a case in which plaintiff alleged a policy of continuing discriminatory practices. In Reed, the district court found that plaintiff had alleged only three instances of discrimination, and held that her claim was time-barred because it had not been filed within the appropriate time period from the date of the last discriminatory instance. Id. On appeal, we held that: 20 The complaint should not be read so narrowly. Her allegations included a sweeping attack on Lockheed's systems of promotion, compensation and training. She alleged that the violations took place throughout her service at Lockheed and until the day she filed her complaint.... [E]ach day without promotion constituted a new violation of Title VII, assuming that similarly situated males were promoted with more regularity. 21 Id. at 759-60. 22 Like the Reed plaintiff, Gutowsky presents specific examples of discrimination which are not the basis of her charge of discrimination but rather are but evidence that a policy of discrimination pervaded [her employer's] personnel decisions. Id. at 760. Indeed, Gutowsky contends that the widespread policy and practices of discrimination of which she complains continued every day of her employment, including days that fall within the limitation period. 23 The County's theory ignores the portions of Gutowsky's claim of explicit experiences of discrimination that show these to be a continuing pattern of discriminatory action in its promotion and placement procedures; and that these practices and procedures were in place during the entire period of Gutowsky's employment. The significance of the fact that Gutowsky's name did not appear on an eligibility list in December 1992 is for the trier of fact to consider. The publication of the list did not necessarily signal the end of those practices. Publication of such a list was completely consistent with a policy against putting women in the cabs of snowplows and other heavy equipment.