©2026 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2026 Cal-Peculiarities | 113 because the employer had not definitely rejected the officer’s concerns about the harassment he was experiencing.267 In another “continuing violation” case, the Court of Appeal sustained a female spa employee’s hostile environment claim alleging unwelcome sexual overtures and assault by a company salesman.268 Her complaints to the company were unavailing and when a new owner took over the company the situation deteriorated further.269 Although much of the conduct preceded the limitations period, the Court of Appeal permitted the plaintiff to sue for it, because the new owner claimed to have a “zero tolerance” policy for sexual discrimination and the plaintiff could reasonably expect him to prevent further harassment, despite her unheard prior complaints, and as to those complaints the prior owner had not formally rejected her claims of harassment.270 Equitable tolling. California plaintiffs can extend suit-filing deadlines upon showing (1) timely notice to the defendant, (2) lack of prejudice to the defendant, and (3) reasonable conduct in good faith by the plaintiff.271 In a 2020 case, the Court of Appeal, reversing a summary judgment against a plaintiff for bringing an untimely FEHA claim, held that there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the FEHA limitations period had been equitably tolled by the filing of a workers’ compensation claim.272 Because that claim involved work-related stress arising from homophobic harassment that supported the later FEHA claim, the Court of Appeal concluded that an investigation concerning the source of the work-related stress should have preserved evidence concerning his discrimination claims.273 And even though the plaintiff waited 11 months after the workers’ compensation claim resolved to file his FEHA claim, he allegedly “was so distressed that he became suicidal and was unable to work, and he was denied adequate counselling while struggling to recover.”274 Disapproving contractual limitations. The Court of Appeal has rejected a defendant’s reliance on a contractually shortened limitations period in a sexual harassment lawsuit.275 The Court of Appeal concluded that a six-month limitations period was “unreasonable and against public policy.”276 Tolling individual claims during class actions. California law, like federal law, tolls the limitations period for individual claims during the pendency of class actions asserting those claims. The Court of Appeal so held in a case where a trial court granted summary judgment against a retail manager, concluding that his various wage and hour claims were all time-barred.277 The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could claim the benefit of classaction tolling, by which the limitations period for an individual claim is tolled from the time an asserted class action starts until the time when class certification is denied.278 The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could reasonably have relied on the pending class actions as a basis for postponing the filing of his own claims, and the defendant suffered no prejudice because the class actions provided adequate notice of the plaintiff’s potential claims.279 5.7.6 Statute of Frauds not a defense Plaintiffs suing for breach of a contract of continued employment, requiring good cause for dismissal, often rely on alleged oral promises made many years ago, by managers no longer with the employer. The Statute of Frauds, found in virtually every state, generally provides that a contract must be in writing to be enforceable, if by its terms the contract is not to be performed within one year from its inception.280 One might think that an oral contract of continued employment, contemplating performance for a period of more than one year, is subject to the Statute of Frauds. Not so in California. The California Supreme Court has held that the Statute of Frauds defense is unavailable in an employment case because an oral employment contract could possibly be completed within one year, in that, within one year, the employee could quit or die or be fired for good cause.281 The Supreme Court’s reasoning thus relied on the possibility of a first-year failure of performance of an oral employment contract, even though the Statute of Frauds itself addresses only actual performance of the contract.282
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4