142 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 244 Id. 245 Id. at 286 (citing law review article authored by Chief Judge Wald of the D.C. Circuit). 246 Davis v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 220 Cal. App. 4th 358, 361 (2013). 247 Id. 248 Id. at 369 (emphasis in original). 249 Id. at 370. 250 Gov’t Code § 12923(e). 251 See, e.g., Coate v. Superior Ct., 81 Cal. App. 3d 113, 115 (1978) (absent a finding of waiver of the privilege, a court may not compel disclosure of joint federal or joint state income tax returns, or information contained therein; privilege of tax returns “facilitate[s] tax enforcement by encouraging a taxpayer to make full and truthful declarations in his return, without fear that his statements will be revealed or used against him for other purposes”). 252 See, e.g., Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 257-58 (1980) (statute of limitations for Title VII action began to run when adverse employment decision was communicated to employee, not when it took effect). But see Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (180-day statute of limitations for filing equal-pay suit reset with each new discriminatory paycheck). 253 Id. 254 Romano v. Rockwell Int’l, 14 Cal. 4th 479, 503 (1996). Similarly, under Ninth Circuit authority that would likely apply to a California claim, a plaintiff suing for constructive discharge can start the time in which to sue with the date of resignation, not the day of the last event prompting the resignation. Fielder v. UAL Corp., 218 F.3d 973, 988 (9th Cir. 2000) (date of resignation, not date of last intolerable act, triggers limitations period for constructive discharge claim), judgment vacated by UAL Corp. v. Fielder, 536 U.S. 919 (2002). 255 McCaskey v. CSAA, 189 Cal. App. 4th 947, 957-62 (2010) (2020), judgment reversed and remanded by Pollock v. Tri-Modal Dist. Servs., 11 Cal. 5th 918 (2021). 256 Pollock v. Tri-Modal Dist. Servs., 11 Cal. 5th 918 (2021). 257 Id. at 941. 258 Id. at 945-47. 259 Id. 260 Richards v. CHWM Hill, Inc., 26 Cal. 4th 798, 802 (2001). 261 Id. For more on California’s continuing violation doctrine, see § 6.11.3. 262 Brome v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 44 Cal. App. 5th 786, 798-801 (2020). 263 Id. 264 Blue Fountain Pools & Spas Inc. v. Superior Ct. (Arias), 53 Cal. App. 5th 239 (2020). 265 Id. at 245-46. 266 Id. at 252. 267 McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 45 Cal. 4th 88, 102 (2008). 268 Brome v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 44 Cal. App. 5th 786, 795-98 (2020). 269 Id. 270 Id. at 798. 271 See, e.g., Ellis v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 224 Cal. App. 4th 1213 (2014) (reversing judgment for the defendant, where plaintiff, a security guard, had signed an employment application purporting to limit the statute of limitations to six months for any employment-related claim). 272 Id. at 1217. 273 Hildebrandt v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 58 Cal. App. 5th 128, 136-39 (2020) (citing Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988)). 274 Hildebrandt, 58 Cal. App. 5th at 139-45. 275 Id. 276 See, e.g., Civ. Code § 1624(a). 277 Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 673 (1988) (citing White Lighting Co. v. Wolfson, 68 Cal. 2d 336, 343-44 (1968)). 278 See Civ. Code § 1624(a)(1): “The following contracts are invalid unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent: (1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.” 279 See, e.g., Sciborski v. Pac. Bell Directory, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1152 (2012) (to invoke LMRA preemption, defendant must show claim “cannot be resolved on the merits without choosing among competing interpretations of a collective bargaining agreement and its application to the claim”; CBA interpretation not needed to resolve claim that employer unlawfully used self-help to deduct funds from wages already paid, upon the employer’s unilateral declaration that a commission was unearned)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4