The “Continuing Violation” Doctrine and Timely CRD Complaints: What California Employers Need to Know
Introduction
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employees who believe they’ve been discriminated against, harassed, or retaliated against must first file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) before bringing a lawsuit. Normally, that complaint has to be filed within three years of the alleged unlawful conduct (Gov. Code § 12960(e)).
But there’s an important wrinkle: the continuing violation doctrine. This doctrine allows employees to reach back beyond the normal three-year window if they can show the unlawful conduct was ongoing, related, and not yet "permanent." For employers, understanding how this doctrine works is critical to evaluating risk when defending a claim.
What Is the Timely Filing Requirement?
Under FEHA, an employee must file a CRD complaint within three years of the alleged discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Failure to meet this deadline can bar his or her lawsuit entirely.
The filing deadline serves as a statute of limitations safeguard for employers, preventing stale or long-dormant claims.
(Gov. Code § 12960(e); Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 63.)
The Continuing Violation Exception
An employee may still recover for acts that occurred outside the three-year period if they prove:
The earlier acts were similar or related to conduct within the limitations period.
The conduct was reasonably frequent (not occasional, sporadic, or isolated).
The conduct had not become “permanent” before the cutoff date.
(CACI No. 2508; Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 823–24; Wassmann v. S. Orange Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 825, 850.)
What does “permanent” mean?
The conduct stopped, or
The employee resigned, or
The employer made it clear that no further internal efforts would change the situation (e.g., refusing accommodation outright).
Once conduct is “permanent,” the statute of limitations clock starts ticking.
Burden of Proof
The employee carries the burden to show they filed a timely CRD complaint.
This includes proving any excuse for late filing, such as the continuing violation doctrine.
Courts have held that whether the doctrine applies is often a fact question for the jury.
(Kim v. Konad USA Distrib., Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345; Jumaane v. City of L.A. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1402.)
Why This Matters for Employers
The continuing violation doctrine is most often raised in:
Harassment and hostile work environment claims – where alleged misconduct stretches over months or years.
Disability accommodation claims – where ongoing refusals or delays in accommodating can extend the limitations window.
Employers cannot assume that older conduct is automatically time-barred: if misconduct continued into the limitations period, those older events may still come in.
Key Employer Takeaways
Track timelines carefully: When defending a CRD complaint or lawsuit, consider whether the employee is trying to extend their claims with the continuing violation doctrine.
Address issues promptly: Promptly investigate and resolve complaints. Allowing misconduct to continue can extend liability years into the past.
Communicate clearly: If the employer makes a final decision (e.g., denying accommodation), it may trigger “permanence” and start the statute of limitations clock.
Document actions: Clear records of corrective measures or the resolution of a situation can help establish that the conduct ended — cutting off the continuing violation argument.
Seek legal advice early: Continuing violation issues can make or break whether a lawsuit proceeds, and timing defenses require careful handling.
Bottom Line
The continuing violation doctrine is a powerful tool for employees to revive older claims that would otherwise be untimely. For California employers, it underscores the importance of timely intervention, clear communication, and thorough documentation.
Failing to address alleged harassment, discrimination, or accommodation issues not only exposes you to liability for present claims, but can also open the door to years of past conduct coming into play at trial. Taking proactive steps today can cut off expanded liability tomorrow.
Citations
Gov. Code § 12960(e); Dominguez v. Washington Mut. Bank, 168 Cal.App.4th 714 (2008); Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 88 Cal.App.4th 52 (2000); Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (2001); Kim v. Konad USA Distrib., Inc., 226 Cal.App.4th 1336 (2014); Jumaane v. City of L.A., 241 Cal.App.4th 1390 (2015); Wassmann v. S. Orange Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 24 Cal.App.5th 825 (2018); Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (2009); Acuna v. SDG&E, 217 Cal.App.4th 1402 (2013); CACI No. 2508.
