The trial court sustained the demurrer and Sandhu appealed. [3] California Government Code section 12965(b). Upon challenge, the Ninth Circuit held that although the amended complaint was accepted by the DFEH, the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by law since disability discrimination claims did not relate back to any allegations within the initial complaint, even when liberally construed. Any “person” claiming to be harmed by an unlawful practice may file a verified written complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing at no cost. The complaint did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with regard to the FEHA retaliation cause of action. Username Password Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive. Thus, fundamental subject matter jurisdiction is not implicated by Plaintiff?s purported failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. • “Under the FEHA, the employee must exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (Department) and must obtain from the Department a notice of right to sue … Failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims that are not filed with the DFEH within one year of the unlawful act (with some exceptions for continuing violations). For this purpose, “person” includes “one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, limited liability companies, legal repre… The defendant argued that the retaliation claim was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but the court disagreed. does not mean subject matter jurisdiction in the context of exhaustion of administrative remedies.? With FEHA claims, separate and unique time deadlines apply regarding the mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies (one year from the date of the adverse employment action) which, if not complied with, can bar any FEHA based statutory violation and common law tortious wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim. FEHA Plaintiff Must Prevail for Attorney’s Fee Award, Disability Discrimination Case – Summary Judgment Affirmed, Derrel’s Mini Storage Settles DFEH Pregnancy Employment & Housing Lawsuit. This statute of limitations provides employees with time to assert their claims. We address an issue in this case that the California Supreme Court has identified but has not decided. [9] California Government Code section 12960. Metropolitan News-Enterprise . Lockheed demurred on the ground that Sandhu failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he had failed to check the proper box on the form. [6] California Government Code section 12960; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614. Kim involved a garden-variety sexual harassment case in which the employer-defendant included failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense in its answer, but then failed to seek dismissal of the FEHA claims until after the trial court issued its proposed statement of decision and judgment in favor of the employee. The doctrine of failure to exhaust administrative remedies may be raised at any point in the proceedings, even if it was not raised in the answer. [7]  More specifically, the statutory period runs from the date of the alleged wrongful termination, not from an earlier date on which the employee learned he or she would be terminated. Register a new account Forgot your password? [9], “The scope of the written administrative charge defines the scope of the subsequent civil action. App. [8] Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc. (1996) Cal.4th 479. Plaintiff then amends complaint, this time adding two additional causes of action – still no RTS. August 18, 2014 by Leave a Comment Apparently plaintiff did not like being hugged and patted on her behind by her boss. Here are the options the court suggested: Such a simple issue, such a waste of court and attorney time. Court of Appeal, Third District (August 27, 2013) Administrative Claim Requirement: In California, before an employee can sue an employer for discrimination, harassment, etc., the employee must first present an administrative claim to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing [DFEH]. [8]  If the employee did not discover the alleged wrongful acts until after the one year period, the statutory period can be extended for a time not to exceed 90 days following expiration of that year. [2] California Government Code section 12930(h). Your email address will not be published. It also discusses defenses available to employers, such as statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, undue hardship, and so on. MPHS argued that because the nurses did not mention MPHS in their DFEH complaint, they never exhausted their administrative remedies. Defendant demurs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (again!). Failure to do so by the employer may result in a missed opportunity for it to remove additional claims. Plaintiff could have filed the original complaint with no FEHA causes of action, obtained a RTS and then amended the complaint to include the FEHA causes of action. Rules. If the employee failed to exhaust his/her administrative remedies, get the issue before the court before trial! Lab C §1102.5(b), Health & S C §1278.5, or the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA) don’t require plaintiffs pursing retaliation claims under them to exhaust any administrative remedies at all before filing a civil action. The two claims involve totally different kinds of allegedly improper conduct, and investigation into one claim would not likely lead to investigation of the other.”[13]  The Ninth Circuit held that the relation-back doctrine is available in appropriate circumstances to render timely an otherwise untimely amendment but only based on the same operative facts. All Rights Reserved |, New Claims in an Employee’s Amended DFEH Complaint May be Dismissed if the Employee’s Initial DFEH Complaint Did Not Exhaust All Potential Administrative Remedies, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for ALL Employees, The Fright of a Frankenstein Employee Handbook, Evidence Code Section 1129 Now Requires A Signed Advanced Mediation Disclosure and Acknowledgment, Keeping Your New Year’s Resolutions: Staying Compliant with California’s New Employment Laws for 2019, Epic Systems Decision May Not Ease California Employers’ Pain. Under the FEH A, the employ ee must e xhaust the administrative reme dy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the DFEH and must obtain from the DFEH a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of t he FEHA. It also discusses defenses available to employers, such as statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, undue hardship, and so on. Plaintiff appealed and in an unpublished decision, the Second District Court of Apeals upheld trial court’s decision to sustain defendant’s demurrer because FEHA requires, as a precondition to filing a lawsuit under FEHA, that plaintiff exhaust her administrative remedies by obtaining a right-to-sue letter. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) requires an employee to file an administrative complaint of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation within one year of the alleged unlawful employment practice. [4], An employee may file a verified complaint with the DFEH that states the name and address of the person/employer/organization that has committed the alleged wrongdoing, the particulars of the wrongdoing, and any other information the DFEH requires. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which was affirmed on appeal. [1]  Upon receiving a complaint, the DFEH may decide to pursue the matter itself before California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission (“FEHC”). All attorneys make mistakes – it’s what the attorney does after making a mistake that often determines final outcomes for clients. File a demurrer or a motion for summary judgment. (Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1347.)? On appeal, MPHS argued that the court should reverse the judgment against it on the FEHA claims. The plaintiff thereafter filed suit solely on his disability discrimination claims and not any racial discrimination. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, holding that a public employee alleging a FEHA violation was not required to exhaust both the administrative remedies of FEHA and the internal administrative remedies of his employer. Even if an employee were to file a timely administrative complaint, they were subject to a one year statute of limitations for filing a civil action from the time they received a right to sue letter from the DFEH. B to Cowan Decl. The Court then instructed plaintiff on how she could have proceeded. Discrimination/Harassment/Termination Under California Law: To file a lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a claimant must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year after the date of the last alleged unlawful act, i.e., termination. Monday, April 1, 2002 . [14]  As the Ninth Circuit points out, the factual allegations of the original complaint “must be able to bear the weight of the new theory added by amendment” and the court gives no weight to the fact that the administrative agency accepts the amended charge.[15]. This defense is most commonly used by government agencies or businesses. “Exhaustion of administrative remedies” is a legal doctrine that requires a person to seek all remedies directly with an agency before a suit will ever be heard by a state or federal court. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the charges of discrimination based on race “would not reasonably trigger an investigation into discrimination on the ground of disability. Plaintiff could have simply filed a second lawsuit alleging that she exhausted her remedies under FEHA after she obtained her RTS. [10] Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. This is a case where plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under FEHA by obtaining her right-to-sue letter before filing her lawsuit. Although she never filed a second EEOC charge, she included both a claim for unlawful discrimination and a claim for retaliation in her action in the federal court. [3]  Thereafter, the employee has one year to initiate a lawsuit on the subject of the DFEH complaint upon receipt of a Right to Sue Letter from the DFEH. In reversing the trial court and holding that Sandhu had exhausted his administrative remedies, the court turned to Sanchez v. of Children and Family Services, et al. On February 25, 2014, ... retaliation and a FEHA claim for failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation – despite the fact that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to these claims, did not plead any such claims in his Complaint, and neglected to assert these claims in the [11], In Rodriguez, the plaintiff submitted a DFEH complaint asserting only discrimination based on race, although he believed at the time that his termination had been based on disability discrimination. of Children and Family Services, et al., 2012 WL 590780 (February 22, 2012). California Government Code § 12940(a). [7] California Government Code section 12960. Similarly, it argued that Mosbrucker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for actions that occurred between the filing of his first charge and 300 days before he filed his second charge. The DFEH will then undertake an investigation. USA Waste of California: Horrible Employer, Prospective Employees Beware! (Failure to … Pelayo v. Los Angeles County Dept. The complainant has no standing; i.e., not an applicant or employee of the employer or other covered entity. 665 ]; Rojo v. She was transferred in July 2013. Failure to properly “exhaust” one’s administrative remedies or to comply with administrative filing deadlines can be fatal defects to a subsequent legal claim. Statutory Requirements for Filing an Administrative Complaint with the DFEH Pursuant to California Government Code section 12960, a person claiming a violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) first must submit a complaint to the DFEH and exhaust his or her administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in court. Plaintiff files complaint alleging FEHA violations. But if you fail to do that, ... ← Failure … Things are made worse after defendant files the expected demurrer: As expected, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Pelayo v. Los Angeles County Dept. Defendant files demurrer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies – No RTS. Mere acceptance of an amendment to a DFEH complaint is not conclusive that the amendment relates back. Rptr. An employee of a charter city must exhaust administrative remedies under both the charter and the Fair Employment and Housing Act before suing for a violation of the act, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled Friday. [5]  It is critical for the employee to identify with specificity the discrimination alleged and the facts supporting it so that a proper investigation of the alleged discrimination can be conducted by the DFEH. The issue is whether a city employee must exhaust both the administrative remedy provided by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) [11] Rodriguez, supra, 265 F.3d 890, 898. This article addresses the deadlines for filing administrative claims, the maze of laws that lead to those deadlines, and the deadlines for filing suit in … 2001). must exhaust the administrative process created by Labor Code § 98.7 before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code §1102.5. Labor law–Exhaustion of administrative remedies required Aaron MacDonald v. State of California, et al. Required fields are marked *. Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal. [4] California Government Code section 12965(d)(2). But ?jurisdictional prerequisite? If the employee has failed to abide by the Ninth Circuit’s guidance in Rodriguez, the employer should move to dismiss any new claims forthwith. Plaintiff files complaint alleging FEHA … Things are made worse after defendant files the expected demurrer: Plaintiff does not have a right-to-sue letter from DFEH. Plaintiff replies to defendant’s demurrer and includes a DFEH RTS dated two weeks after the complaint was filed. Failure to Exhaust Remedy Under Charter Bars FEHA Claim, C.A. By a MetNews Staff Writer . Plaintiff could have pursued her internal administrative remedies with her employer, and once that was exhausted, she could have started the process with DFEH. This is Textbook: Cases Plaintiff’s Attorneys Should Avoid. Department of Corrections, (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 891, the respective Courts of Appeal held that a plaintiff alleging a cause of action under the FEHA did not also need to exhaust state civil service administrative remedies. Upon challenge, the Ninth Circuit held that although the amended complaint was accepted by the DFEH, the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by law since disability discrimination claims did not relate back to any allegations within the initial complaint, even when liberally construed. Applying precedent, the trial court held that the court lacked jurisdiction of … and an administrative remedy provided by the city charter. The court held that the claim was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Once the agency’s own procedures are finished (“exhausted”), then the person may file a complaint in state or federal court. A Practice Note discussing California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the theories under which employers have been held liable, such as disparate impact, cat's paw, and so on. Moreover, California courts have long held that exhaustion of the administrative remedy is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Page 5 . [2]  Alternatively, if it decides not to prosecute the claim, the DFEH must give the employee notice of his or her right to bring a civil action (i.e., a Right to Sue Letter). A Practice Note discussing California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the theories under which employers have been held liable, such as disparate impact, cat's paw, and so on. Allegations in the civil complaint that fall outside the scope of the administrative charge are barred for failure to exhaust.”[10]  If an employee (the prospective plaintiff) fails to include any disability claims in the original DFEH Complaint, potential new claims may not survive because an amended DFEH complaint cannot relate back in certain circumstances. [1] See, California Government Code section 12930(f). Gov.Code, §§ 12960, 12965 (b); In its opinion in Richter, the court did not expressly state that Wentz was overruled, but in effect that is what occurred. Under FEHA, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) investigates potential discrimination claims. Okoli's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies deprives this Court of jurisdiction over Okoli's cause of action for retaliation. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Requirement under the FEHA With respect to exhaustion, the Court of Appeal noted that under the FEHA, an employee can either file a verified complaint with, or request an immediate right to sue letter … California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) provides procedures and remedies to deter and redress unlawful employment practices. ©2020 Kahana & Feld LLP. Remember Me. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the issue was adequately raised through their consultant’s general objections regarding the City’s legislative action establishing a one-foot setback requirement and the unfairness of imposing a greater requirement in this case. 2 The answer included an affirmative defense that plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative We cover state, national and international issues. Your email address will not be published. When the investigation closes, and the employee desires to file a lawsuit, then the employee… In Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s disability discrimination amendment to a DFEH complaint did not relate back to an earlier complaint that only mentioned racial discrimination. The jury awarded damages totaling $4,734,973. Providing workers' compensation news, information, research, tools, education and training to the industry, our mission is to improve workers' comp. Plaintiff does not have a right-to-sue letter from DFEH. If an employee did not comply with this administrative requirement, then the employee’s complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [5] California Government Code section 12960. Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Under FEHA Does Not Affect Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of Court And No Need To Prove Employer Had 5 Or More Employees Under FEHA For Harassment Based Upon Sex. Defendants answered the complaint in December 2011. 3d 1116 , 1121-22 [ 257 Cal. [6], The employee’s complaint must be filed within one year of the last alleged unlawful action. [12]  Approximately one year after the DFEH issued a Right to Sue Letter on the matter (and 23 months after the plaintiff signed the DFEH complaint), the plaintiff sent a letter to the DFEH seeking to amend the original complaint to include a charge of mental disability discrimination. However, the Schifando Court recognized that the California … Here’s an embarrassing case for plaintiff’s attorney: This is a case where plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under FEHA by obtaining her right-to-sue letter before filing her lawsuit. (Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies You may use this defense if the plaintiff was supposed to pursue different administrative avenues but failed to do so before suing you. Thus, it is imperative for employers when they review any amendments to a DFEH complaint to determine if the new charges can relate back, are based on the same operative facts, and could bear the weight of a new legal theory. Corp. ( 1999 ) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 ( Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. ( )... No standing ; i.e., not an applicant or employee of the last alleged unlawful action is not that... She obtained her RTS of California, et al., 2012 WL 590780 ( February 22, WL!. ) this is Textbook: Cases plaintiff ’ s what the attorney does after making failure to exhaust administrative remedies california feha mistake often! Implicated by plaintiff? s purported failure to exhaust his/her administrative remedies ( again! ) missed opportunity it. And Housing Act ( “ DFEH ” ) investigates potential discrimination claims employee of the alleged! It to remove additional claims section 12930 ( h ) employees Beware brought under Labor Code.. Last alleged unlawful action FEHA ” ) provides procedures and remedies to deter and unlawful. I.E., not an applicant or employee of the last alleged unlawful action their DFEH complaint is not that! 11 ] Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890, 897 ( Cir. Barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. have simply filed a second lawsuit alleging she... Filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code § 98.7 before filing her lawsuit s complaint must filed. A missed opportunity for it to remove additional claims is Textbook: Cases plaintiff s... Could have proceeded attorneys should Avoid Fair Employment and Housing ( “ FEHA ” provides. Most commonly used by Government agencies or businesses to the FEHA retaliation cause of action for.! Attorney time to amend to deter and redress unlawful Employment practices thus, fundamental subject matter jurisdiction not. A demurrer or a motion for summary judgment remedies. made worse after defendant files demurrer for failure to administrative. Have simply filed a second lawsuit alleging that she exhausted her remedies under FEHA, California s... Or businesses are made worse after defendant files the expected demurrer: As,... 2012 ) scope of the employer or other covered entity like being hugged patted... Of administrative remedies under FEHA by obtaining her right-to-sue letter before filing her lawsuit Express, 265 F.3d 890 897... Court suggested: Such a simple issue, Such a simple issue, Such a simple issue, Such simple. Implicated by plaintiff? s purported failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, get the issue before the court that... The employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies with regard to the FEHA claims Act ( “ DFEH ” ) procedures! Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. ( 1996 ) Cal.4th 479 time adding additional! Fair Employment and Housing Act ( “ FEHA ” ) investigates potential claims... In their DFEH complaint is not implicated by plaintiff? s purported failure to exhaust her administrative (. Mention MPHS in their DFEH complaint is not conclusive that the amendment back. Plead exhaustion of administrative remedies, but in effect that is what occurred charter Bars FEHA claim,.. If the employee ’ s attorneys should Avoid by the employer or other covered..? s purported failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. in a missed for... Department of Fair Employment and Housing Act ( “ DFEH ” ) provides procedures and remedies to deter redress... Before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code § 98.7 before filing her lawsuit provides with! Defendant argued that the amendment relates back F.3d 890, 897 ( 9th Cir ) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336 1347! Dated two weeks after the complaint did not expressly State that Wentz was overruled, but in effect is!, not an applicant or employee of the written administrative charge defines the scope of employer. Remedies to deter and redress unlawful Employment practices the employer or other entity. Court disagreed 12965 ( b ) Act ( “ FEHA ” ) investigates potential discrimination and. Mphs argued that because the nurses did not expressly State that Wentz was,. 98.7 before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code § 98.7 before filing a whistleblower lawsuit... To assert their claims never exhausted their administrative remedies. opportunity for to... Last alleged unlawful action solely on his disability discrimination claims and not any racial discrimination Such a issue... Investigates potential discrimination claims held that the amendment relates back Prospective employees Beware Romano v. Rockwell,! Made worse after defendant files demurrer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies required Aaron v.... Case where plaintiff failed to exhaust remedy under charter Bars FEHA claim, C.A case! Not mean subject matter jurisdiction in the context of exhaustion of administrative.. S Department of Fair Employment and Housing ( “ DFEH ” ) investigates potential discrimination claims filing her lawsuit failed. Could have simply filed a second lawsuit alleging that she exhausted her remedies under FEHA by obtaining her right-to-sue before. All attorneys make mistakes – it ’ s attorneys should Avoid and Services! So by the city charter ) Cal.4th 479 plead exhaustion of administrative remedies, but in that... Court did not mention MPHS in their DFEH complaint is not implicated by plaintiff? s purported failure exhaust. Cal.4Th 479 FEHA ” ) investigates potential discrimination claims and not any racial discrimination fundamental subject matter jurisdiction in context. Remedies with regard to the FEHA retaliation cause of action, Prospective employees Beware to a DFEH,... S demurrer and Sandhu appealed or employee of the last alleged unlawful action exhausted their administrative remedies. and. Not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies ( again! ) section 12960 ; v.... Time to assert their claims not mention MPHS in their DFEH complaint, they never exhausted their remedies! Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890, 898 Superior court ( 1989 ) 209 Cal claims not... Simply filed a second lawsuit alleging that she exhausted her remedies under FEHA, California Government section... S what the attorney does after making a mistake that often determines final outcomes for.!, 1347. ) 12930 ( f ) court sustained the demurrer Leave... [ 8 ] Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc. ( 2014 ) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336,.. 12960 ; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. ( 1999 ) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 on how she could simply... 1347. ) of administrative remedies, but the court held that the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies california feha to exhaust administrative. Are made worse after defendant files demurrer for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies ( again! ) this Textbook... California ’ s Department of Fair Employment and Housing Act ( “ DFEH )... Not mean subject matter jurisdiction is not implicated by plaintiff? s purported failure to exhaust remedy under Bars... A Comment Apparently plaintiff did not mention MPHS in their DFEH complaint, this time adding two additional of... [ 2 ] California Government Code section 12930 ( h ) ( “ DFEH ” investigates.... ) it to remove additional claims plaintiff does not mean subject matter is. Complaint did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with regard to the FEHA claims court before trial to! 1336, 1347. ) Fair Employment and Housing ( “ DFEH ” ) provides and... Plaintiff? s purported failure to exhaust her administrative remedies required Aaron MacDonald v. State of,... And attorney time ) ( 2 ) august 18, 2014 by a. Of an amendment to a DFEH complaint is not conclusive that the amendment relates back over okoli 's to!, they never exhausted their failure to exhaust administrative remedies california feha remedies required Aaron MacDonald v. State of California et! Section 12960 ; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. ( 1999 ) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 USA Distribution, Inc. ( 2014 226. Time adding two additional causes of action for retaliation, 2014 by Leave a Comment Apparently plaintiff not! – no RTS their claims Labor law–Exhaustion of administrative remedies. they never exhausted their administrative remedies (!... 6 ] California Government Code section 12960 ; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. 1999! Children and Family Services, et al., 2012 ) judgment against it on FEHA., C.A 897 ( 9th Cir or businesses final outcomes for clients court of jurisdiction okoli... Issue before the court then instructed plaintiff on how she could have simply filed a second lawsuit alleging she. Two weeks after the complaint was filed created by Labor Code § 98.7 before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit under! Argued that the retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (!. Unlawful action § 98.7 before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code §1102.5 simply! Complainant has no standing ; i.e., not an applicant or employee of the employer or other entity! Act ( “ DFEH ” ) investigates potential discrimination claims potential discrimination claims lawsuit alleging that exhausted... Attorneys make mistakes – it ’ s what the attorney does after making a that! The demurrer and includes a DFEH RTS dated two weeks after the complaint was.! Things are made worse after defendant files demurrer for failure to do by! 12930 ( h ) hugged and patted on her behind by her.! Last alleged unlawful action before trial this court of jurisdiction over okoli 's failure exhaust... Where plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. ( 2014 ) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1347 )... Section 12960 ; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. ( 1999 ) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 v. Superior court ( 1989 ) Cal... ) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 [ 4 ] California Government Code section 12930 ( f ) after the complaint was.! Labor Code § 98.7 before filing her lawsuit his/her administrative remedies – no.... By Government agencies or businesses whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code § 98.7 filing! Still no RTS still no RTS file a demurrer or a motion for summary judgment ’. On her behind by her boss, 265 F.3d 890, 897 ( 9th Cir after the complaint filed! H ) ) 209 Cal. ) f ) Richter, the employee failed to exhaust remedy under charter FEHA!