In Willis v. City of Carlsbad, published May 12, 2020, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed a judgment after jury trial in favor of the defendant city. The plaintiff, a city police officer, reported perceived misconduct in 2012. In 2013, after the report was revealed, he was reassigned from a crimes of violence unit to patrol. In 2013, he filed a retaliation complaint with the Labor Commission. In 2013, he applied for open detective positions, but was passed over in favor of other candidates. In early 2015, the plaintiff complained about a program he believed was an illegal quota. In July 2015, he was passed over for a promotion. In December 2015, he presented a claim for damages to the city, complaining of his 2013 transfer and his various denials of promotion. In February 2016, he filed suit. The court granted the city’s motion to strike his allegations of retaliation that occurred more than six months before he presented his claim. The jury eventually found in the plaintiff’s favor that his reporting was a factor in the city’s decision to deny him the July 2015 promotion, but also found the city would have denied the promotion for independent reasons. Judgment was entered for the city. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision on the motion to strike. He argued, in the alternative, that his complaint to the Labor Commission equitably tolled his time to present a claim, or that his claim was timely under the continuous violation doctrine.
The appellate court ruled that the trial court properly struck the allegations of retaliation that occurred before June 2015, because the plaintiff’s claim was untimely. The court rejected the argument that the time to present the claim was equitably tolled. While a statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit may be equitably tolled while the plaintiff pursues an alternative remedy, equitable tolling does not apply to Government Code section 911.2’s six-month deadline to present a claim for damages. The claim deadline is not a statute of limitations. No case has held that the deadline to present a claim may be equitably tolled. Instead, the claim deadline is strictly enforced, to promote the policies behind requiring claims for damages. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the claim was timely because the continuous violation doctrine applies, delaying accrual until the last act of retaliation. When his transfer requests were denied, and the positions he sought were filled, as part of the alleged retaliation, the acts of alleged retaliation gained permanence, and the cause of action for that retaliation accrued.
Comments