Coyle v. Sacramento Municipal Ultility Dist. CA3

Filed 6/15/22 Coyle v. Sacramento Municipal Ultility Dist. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MARY COYLE, C090940

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201700209249CUWTGDS) v.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT,

Defendant and Respondent.

Mary Coyle sued the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), alleging causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court granted SMUD’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Coyle, concluding that Coyle failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies because she did not file her administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year after the alleged unlawful activity. Coyle now contends that her DFEH administrative complaint was timely due to equitable tolling. We conclude that, on the record presented to us, Coyle’s equitable tolling argument lacks merit. We will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND Coyle worked for SMUD for 31 years until she retired on March 4, 2016. In 2009, she was diagnosed with cancer and received accommodations and medical leave from SMUD as a result of the cancer and treatment. On March 7, 2017, one year and three days after her retirement, Coyle filed a DFEH administrative complaint alleging SMUD discriminated against her under FEHA during her career at SMUD. Also on March 7, 2017, DFEH issued a right to sue letter. On March 13, 2017, Coyle filed this action against SMUD. She alleged four FEHA causes of action: violation of the California Family Rights Act, disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to accommodate. Coyle alleged she was constructively discharged on March 7, 2016, which was actually three days after she retired. We need not detail the discrimination allegations of the DFEH administrative complaint or the complaint filed in this case because the case hinges entirely on whether Coyle filed a timely administrative complaint with DFEH. SMUD answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting, among other things, that Coyle failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies. SMUD’s points and authorities in support of the motion for summary judgment included two pages of law and argument concerning Coyle’s failure to file her DFEH administrative complaint within one year after the unlawful activity as required by Government Code former section 12960, subdivision (d). Coyle filed points and authorities in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On the issue of failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies, Coyle claimed SMUD’s unlawful activities constituted a continuing violation (see Green v. Brennan (2016) 578 U.S. 547 [195 L.Ed.2d 44]), but she did not address SMUD’s argument that she failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies because she did not file a DFEH administrative complaint within one year after the last alleged unlawful activity. SMUD filed a reply to Coyle’s opposition, noting Coyle had not appropriately responded to the timeliness issue.