California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 12960 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This article governs the procedure for the prevention and elimination of practices made unlawful pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 12940) of Chapter 6.

(b)For purposes of this section, filing a complaint means filing an intake form with the department and the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the intake form.

(c)Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice may file with the department a verified complaint, in writing, that shall state the name and address of the person, employer, labor organization, or employment agency alleged to have committed the unlawful practice complained of, and that shall set forth the particulars thereof and contain other information as may be required by the department. The director or the director’s authorized representative may in like manner, on that person’s own motion, make, sign, and file a complaint.

(d)Any employer whose employees, or some of them, refuse or threaten to refuse to cooperate with this part may file with the department a verified complaint asking for assistance by conciliation or other remedial action.

(e)(1)A complaint alleging a violation of Section 51, 51.5, 51.7, 54, 54.1, or 54.2 of the Civil Code shall not be filed pursuant to this article after the expiration of one year from the date that the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.

(2)A complaint alleging a violation of Section 52.5 of the Civil Code shall not be filed pursuant to this article after the expiration of the applicable period of time for commencing a civil action pursuant to that section.

(3)A complaint alleging a violation of Article 9.5 (commencing with Section 11135) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 shall not be filed pursuant to this article after the expiration of three years from the date that the alleged unlawful practice occurred or refusal to cooperate occurred.

(4)A complaint alleging a violation of Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code shall not be filed pursuant to this article after the expiration of the applicable period of time for commencing a civil action pursuant to that section.

(5)A complaint alleging a violation of Section 51.9 of the Civil Code or any other violation of Article 1 (commencing with Section 12940) of Chapter 6 shall not be filed after the expiration of three years from the date upon which the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.

(6)Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (5), inclusive, the filing periods set forth by this section may be extended as follows:

(A)For a period of time not to exceed 90 days following the expiration of the applicable filing deadline, if a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice first obtained knowledge of the facts of the alleged unlawful practice during the 90 days following the expiration of the applicable filing deadline.

(B)For a period of time not to exceed one year following a rebutted presumption of the identity of the person’s employer under Section 12928, in order to allow a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice to make a substitute identification of the actual employer.

(C)For a period of time, not to exceed one year from the date the person aggrieved by an alleged violation of Section 51.7 of the Civil Code becomes aware of the identity of a person liable for the alleged violation, but in no case exceeding three years from the date of the alleged violation if during that period the aggrieved person is unaware of the identity of any person liable for the alleged violation.

(D)For a period of time not to exceed one year from the date that a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice attains the age of majority.

(E)For the periods of time specified in Section 52.5 of the Civil Code for complaints alleging a violation of that section.

(f)(1)Notwithstanding any tolling or limitations period under any other law, the time for a complainant to file a civil action under a statute referenced in this section shall be tolled during the period commencing with the filing of a complaint with the department for an alleged violation of that statute until either of the following:

(A)The department files a civil action for the alleged violation under this part.

(B)One year after the department issues either of the following to a complainant:

(i)Written notice that it has closed its investigation without electing to file a civil action for the alleged violation.

(ii)If the complainant timely appeals to the department the closure of their complaint, written notice that the complaint has remained closed following the appeal to the department.

(2)The tolling provided under this subdivision shall apply retroactively.

(3)This subdivision is not intended to revive claims that have already lapsed.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 169 cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 29 P.3d 175 (Cal. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 29 P.3d 175 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 4× “(Gov.Code, § 12960.) [1] This case raises the following question of interpretation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA; § 12900 et seq.”

Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 229 P.3d 83 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 4× “, concurred. NOTES [1] Under FEHA, an administrative complaint filed with the DFEH must be filed within one year of the date of the alleged discriminatory action.”

Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, 79 P.3d 569 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 2× “7), or constitutional provisions involving discrimination, it expressly preempts local governmental laws, regulations, and procedures that would affect the rights included in its provisions.”

Wassmann v. S. Orange Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 2× “The trial court concluded that Wassmann had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because she did not timely file a charge with the DFEH.”

Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles, 128 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “The City contended plaintiff failed to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of any adverse employment action (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d)), and thus, he could not bring his lawsuit.”

Baxter v. Genworth N. Am. Corp., 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 2× “Statute of limitations A FEHA administrative claim must be filed within one year of the employer's discriminatory act, and a lawsuit alleging FEHA claims must be filed in court within one year of the date the DFEH, the administrative agency charged with investigating the claim,…”

Brown v. City of Sacramento, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). · cites it 3× “*808 The trial court rejected the City's argument-also advanced on appeal-that the suspensions were barred by the applicable statute of limitations ( Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d) ), finding that "there was conflicting evidence as to whether the incidents involving the jury-slip…”

Morgan v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2543 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× ““Under the FEHA, the employee must exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (Department) and must obtain from the Department a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil…”

Romano v. Rockwell Int'l, Inc., 926 P.2d 1114 (Cal. 1996). · cites it 2× “That section provides in pertinent part: “It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire or employ, or to discharge, dismiss, reduce, suspend, or demote, any individual over the age of 40 on the ground of age, except in cases where the law compels or…”

Cnty. of Riverside v. Superior Court, 66 P.3d 718 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 2× “Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) is granted the authority to resolve a claim that a county has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination in the appointment or dismissal process (Gov.Code, § 12960…”

Accardi v. Superior Court of Ventura Cty., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “*346 The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the causes of action for sexual harassment and emotional distress.”

Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “California Government Code § 12960 generally sets forth procedures that employees are to use when filing DFEH complaints.”

Show all 169 citing cases →

— Cal. Government Code § 12960(a) — 1 case

Weeks v. Union Pac. R.R., 137 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (E.D. Cal. 2015).

— Cal. Government Code § 12960(b) — 3 cases

Peterson v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

Bryan v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Wade v. California Dep't of Corr., 171 F. App'x 601 (9th Cir. 2006).

— Cal. Government Code § 12960(d) — 4 cases

Lelaind v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

Gardner v. City of Berkeley, 838 F. Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 262 F.R.D. 509 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Flores v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 758 F. Supp. 2d 986 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

— Cal. Government Code § 12960(e) — 7 cases

Keith McCabe v. Canon Solutions Am., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Alcaraz v. KMF Oakland LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Gowan v. Stryker Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Olsen v. Hortica Ins. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Durruthy v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Government Code § 12960(e)(5) — 2 cases

Rankins v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Collins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.