Valdez v. Nunley CA2/4

Filed 5/28/24 Valdez v. Nunley CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

KRISTEL VALDEZ, B329294

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV05879) v.

CHIEF CHRISTOPHER NUNLEY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mel Red Recana, Judge. Affirmed. Alexander Morrison + Fehr, J. Bernard Alexander III, Erin Lim and Tracy L. Fehr for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kessel & Megrabyan, Elizabeth Mary Kessel, Armineh Megrabyan and Warren M. Williams for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kristel Valdez filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against her employer, the City of Signal Hill (the City), and her direct supervisor, defendant Christopher Nunley. Valdez asserted seven causes of action against the City but only one cause of action against Nunley. The trial court sustained Nunley’s demurrer based on Valdez’s failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies. Valdez contends the court erred in finding her Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) complaint untimely. Alternatively, the court failed to consider equitable tolling. Her contentions have no merit. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2015, Valdez was hired by the Signal Hill Police Department as an administrative assistant to the Chief of Police. In January 2017, she began working for Nunley, who was the Chief of Police at the time. On November 7, 2019, Valdez submitted an intake form with DFEH, alleging, in part, that she was subjected to harassment by Nunley from September 2015 through December 2018. That day, DFEH confirmed receipt and scheduled an intake interview on February 11, 2020. On March 3, 2020, she filed a verified complaint with DFEH, alleging the same. DFEH issued a right to sue letter on May 7, 2021. On April 28, 2022, Valdez filed the operative first amended complaint against the City and Nunley. The complaint alleged seven FEHA causes of action: (1) harassment; (2) religious discrimination; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) retaliation; and (7) failure to prevent discrimination,