The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
Harassment law contains complex procedural issues. State and federal laws overlap. State and federal court systems have created conflicting rules of law and remedies. There are time limits for when claims must be filed. There are procedural steps one must take to comply with the law. Besides the issue of overlapping federal and state laws, an employee or former employee might file a fabricated harassment lawsuit.
An employee who wants to file a lawsuit against an employer for harassment must first file a claim with the CRD within three years of the alleged violation or with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged violation. If a charge is first filed with the CRD, then a charge can be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged violation or within 30 days of receiving notice that the CRD terminated its proceedings, whichever is earlier.
The time limit for filing claims is generally measured from when the harassment occurred. If the harassment occurred over a lengthy period of time, it is generally measured from the last unlawful act. Similar acts related in time can be part of the claim under the “continuing violations doctrine.”1
The California Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins to run in a FEHA failure to promote case when an employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer’s allegedly unlawful refusal to promote them.2 The court stated that it’s “not enough to identify when an employer made its decision not to promote the employee; what starts the clock is the employee’s actual or constructive knowledge of the employer’s decision.”
The CRD is authorized to file cases directly in court. For more information on the CRD’s investigation and filing of harassment charges, including mandatory dispute resolution, see Filing a Discrimination Charge Under State Law.
Harassment claims are frequently resolved through settlements. However, sweeping nondisclosure agreements in contracts or settlements often require individuals to maintain public silence, preventing them from offering relevant testimony in a public forum on a matter of public concern. Recently, California has enacted several laws substantially limiting the use of confidentiality or nondisclosure provisions in contracts or settlements.
Under a California law, any provision in a contract or settlement agreement will be unenforceable if it prohibits a party to the contract from testifying about criminal conduct or sexual harassment in an administrative, legislative or judicial proceeding. The law covers only testimony that is required, such as by subpoena or court order, or in response to a written request in an administrative or legislative hearing.3
California law significantly expanded those restrictions to prevent the use of non-disclosure provisions in cases of alleged workplace harassment or discrimination based on any characteristic protected under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, not just those based on sex. This includes allegations of discrimination or harassment on the basis of:
While employees can’t be prohibited from discussing underlying facts of the case, employers can still use clauses that prevent disclosure of the amount paid to settle the claim. These restrictions apply to settlement agreements entered on or after January 1, 2022.4
The law prohibits the use of a provision in a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts a person from obtaining future employment with the employer, commonly called a “no re-hire” clause. However, the law makes an exception, allowing no re-hire clauses where the employer has made a good faith determination that the person committed sexual harassment or sexual assault.5
You might face a situation involving an employee who fabricates a harassment lawsuit.
A California appellate court ruled that an employee who fabricates a harassment claim can be disciplined by the employer. The employee is not insulated from being disciplined for conduct that, if it occurred outside an investigation, would warrant termination or other discipline.6
The court’s ruling is consistent with some federal decisions allowing the same.
It is likely that such action will result in the employee claiming retaliation. Unless you have strong evidence of fabrication, you are in for a long litigious road. Though the employer was ultimately vindicated by the court in this case, it wasn’t until after five years passed and the employer was dragged through administrative proceedings and a jury trial.
1. Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (2001)
2. Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 918 (2021)
3. Civ.Code sec. 1670.11
4. Civ.. Code sec. 1001
5. Code of Civ. Proc. sec. 1002.5
6. Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1207 (2012)