July 3, 2020

Volume X, Number 185

July 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Employers Take Note: Employees Now Have Two Extra Years to File FEHA Claims

Among the numerous worker-protection bills California governor Gavin Newsom signed last month was Assembly Bill (AB) 9, giving employees a two-year extension to file Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims.

Currently, employees with FEHA claims must first file administrative charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the aggrieved conduct. This deadline will change on January 1, 2020, when AB 9 will provide employees up to three years to file FEHA administrative charges. Employees will continue to have, as they do now, one year to file a lawsuit after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the DFEH.

AB 9 will not revive claims that have lapsed before January 1, 2020, under the current one-year rule. AB 9 does not specify whether existing claims that expire after January 1, 2020, will be evaluated under the existing one-year deadline or the newer three-year deadline.

AB 9, which is also known as the Stop Harassment and Reporting Extension (SHARE) Act, was introduced by Assemblymember Eloise Reyes in response to the #MeToo movement. According to Reyes, AB 9 addresses barriers for victims of harassment and discrimination who feel they need time to grasp what happened, understand their rights, and feel comfortable coming forward. One sponsor of the legislation also noted that the extension brings FEHA into alignment with other claims with longer statutes of limitations. Those opposing the bill observed that under AB 9 California will have a statute of limitations six times longer than the federal standard, which arguably reduces the motivation for victims to come forward quickly and thus prevents employers from timely eradicating inappropriate behavior, since they cannot correct what they do not know. Such concerns were reflected in former governor Jerry Brown’s veto of a nearly identical bill, AB 1870, last year. In his veto, Governor Brown wrote that the one-year DFEH deadline, in effect since 1963, “encourage[d] prompt resolution of claims while memories [were] fresh, but also ensure[d] that unwelcome behavior [was] promptly reported and halted.”

With this new landscape, it is more important now than ever for employers to review their HR-related policies and practices. Employers should consider evaluating their recordkeeping policies and practices to ensure that key information is retained in records for at least four years, as it could be that long before an employer learns of a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claim. Those records can include employment applications (including applications for promotions), background search results, equal employment opportunity policies, proof of California-compliant training, complaints, HR investigations and notes, internal emails (even if privileged) relating to decisions made, and the reasons for employer actions such as terminations, layoffs, and demotions.

Still, an employer’s document retention is only helpful to the extent that there is a record worth preserving. By the time litigation is underway in FEHA cases, employers may have experienced significant employee turnover and employees’ memories may have faded. For that reason, employers may want to stress to HR and management the importance of properly documenting important information. Management may also want to ensure employees are aware of the employer’s policies and best practices for creating adequate records, whether they concern employee interviews, significant employment events (such as complaints, transfers, resignations, or performance warnings), investigation reports, or legal advice in the form of privileged communications. Finally, HR and managers may want to remain aware of the employer’s document management systems and recordkeeping rules.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 305


About this Author

Roshni Kapoor Employment Attorney Ogletree Deakins Law

Roshni concentrates her practice on defending management in all types of employment litigation. Roshni has represented employers facing single- and multi-plaintiff discrimination suits as well as wage and hour class actions. She has extensive experience with all stages of litigation and has successfully obtained dismissals or negotiated settlements early as well as defended claims up to trial. Roshni also provides advice and counsel to clients on a wide range of employment issues and defends claims made before agencies such as the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and...

Chambord V. Benton-Hayes, Associate, Sacramento, San Francisco Employment Law, Litigation

Chambord is a senior associate in the San Francisco office of Ogletree Deakins. Her employment litigation practice focuses on the representation of employers and management in state and federal courts. Chambord handles class actions as well as employment law claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment, sexual harassment, and wrongful termination. She also represents employers before various administrative agencies including the DFEH, DLSE, DOL, EEOC and WCAB.

Chambord takes great pleasure in oral advocacy. She has experience arguing an array of successful motions including motions for summary judgment in state and federal courts. She has taken numerous employee depositions and defended depositions of management-side witnesses and experts. Chambord also provides employment counseling to clients on a variety of pre-litigation employment issues and legislation.

Prior to joining Ogletree Deakins, Chambord worked at a Sacramento litigation defense firm comprised of seasoned trial attorneys. She litigated employment law, constitutional law, and catastrophic injury matters. She represented parties in all aspects of litigation from the inception of a case through trial, and even before the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District.

Prior to that, Chambord worked for an Oakland defense firm, where she seized the opportunity to run with cases, and was entrusted with trying workers’ compensation discrimination cases. She externed for Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, and for Judge Teri Jackson of the San Francisco County Superior Court.

Chambord is a motivational speaker for high schools, universities, and community organizations. She is also the Vice President of Black Women Lawyers Association of Northern California.