Hernandez v. Golden Gate Regional Center

Background

Juana Lorena Hernandez proceeded without a lawyer and sued Golden Gate Regional Center and Aveanna Healthcare, LLC. She alleged that she was employed by those entities, along with James Cheng, to provide respite services to Cheng’s adult son. Hernandez alleged that Cheng made inappropriate sexual advances or requests during the employment and that she was terminated at Cheng’s instruction.

Her First Claim alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law prohibiting certain employment discrimination. Her Second Claim alleged violations of state law. Those state-law allegations included that Hernandez reported at least two suspected instances of physical abuse by Cheng against his son and that the reports contributed to her termination through retaliation.

The court had previously dismissed the claims in Hernandez’s initial complaint. It had found, among other things, that the Title VII claims appeared barred by the applicable time limit and had allowed Hernandez to amend her complaint to allege facts supporting an exception. The court had also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and had dismissed them without prejudice to filing them in state court or reasserting them in an amended complaint.

Timeliness of the Title VII claims

The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim. The court focused on Title VII’s requirement that a plaintiff timely file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, before suing.

Because California has a state agency with authority to address employment discrimination, the applicable filing period was 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice. Hernandez alleged that she was terminated on July 7, 2022, which the court treated as the latest possible date on which the challenged conduct occurred. The deadline for filing a qualifying charge with the EEOC was therefore May 3, 2023.

Hernandez alleged that she filed a charge with California’s Civil Rights Department, or CRD, on January 23, 2023. But the CRD’s August 14, 2023, right-to-sue notice stated that this charge was not dual-filed with the EEOC. The court therefore did not treat that charge as an EEOC filing under the applicable worksharing arrangement.

Hernandez also referred to an EEOC charge filed either September 11, 2023, or April 15, 2024, and a second CRD charge filed April 23, 2024, that the CRD dual-filed with the EEOC that same day. Because all three referenced filing dates were after May 3, 2023, the court concluded that the Title VII claims were time-barred unless an exception applied.

Equitable tolling

Hernandez requested another opportunity to amend and argued that the 300-day period should be equitably extended while her first CRD charge was pending. The court explained that the applicable test asks whether extending the federal time limit would be consistent with the statutory scheme. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the court concluded that Congress had already established the relevant extension when a plaintiff first files with a qualifying state agency and had not authorized courts to add another period for state-agency delay.

The court found that Hernandez had not alleged facts showing that she timely filed an EEOC charge and that further amendment was not warranted. It therefore dismissed the First Claim without further leave to amend.

State-law claim and disposition

After dismissing the only claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Second Claim. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice to Hernandez’s refiling it in state court.

The court’s conclusion granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss as follows: the First Claim was dismissed without further leave to amend, and the Second Claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.