/** * Adiro Code */

«

»

Dfeh Tolling Agreement

Either way, this is a relatively common factual pattern and I am not surprised by the court`s decision to apply a fair toll. The California Supreme Court first held that the fair limitation period was a doctrine established by the courts „aimed at preventing the unfair and technical effect of the right to proceedings on the merits if the objective of the limitation period – the timely communication of the applicant`s rights to the defendant – was fulfilled“. The doctrine generally applies when an applicant has more than one remedy and pursues one of them reasonably and in good faith. If the exhaustion of an administrative remedy is mandatory before the appeal is lodged, the fair toll is automatic. However, this principle is not operative, because the exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite for the filing of a FEHA claim. Nevertheless, the General Court held that the principles of fair tolling could apply to a voluntary administrative procedure in the event of a procedure: although the applicant does not have recourse to legal power to substantiate his arguments, the Court finds that the EEOC and the dfEH have a work-sharing agreement, so that the lodging of a complaint with the DFEH is generally considered to have been filed with the EEOC. and vice versa. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv.

Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). California courts seem more inclined to agree that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a legal requirement for FEHA`s claims. See Okoli vs. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 CA4th 1607, 1609, 43 CR2d 57; Martin vs. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 CA4th 1718, 1724, 35 CR2d 181; Yurick vs. Superior Court (1989) 209 CA3d 1116, 1121, 257 CR 665; Miller vs. United Airlines, Inc. (1985) 174 CA3d 878, 890, 220 CR 684; Wilkinson vs. Norcal Courage.

In what makes me feel good. Co. (1979) 98 CA3d 307, 318, 159 CR 416; see also Rojo v Kliger (1990) 52 C3d 65, 83, 276 CR 130. Despite these uniform participations, there is scope for an applicant to argue that principles of fairness should apply. See Louis Cairo (1984) No. 84-04, FEHC Precedential Decisions CEB 3 (Cal CEB 1984-1985, 1986-1987) (Statement by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission that feha deadlines are subject to a fair toll when DFEH misled the applicant); Salgado vs. Atlantic Richfield Co. .