Facts

From 1992 to 2004, plaintiff Dominique Drake-Biazevich was employed by defendant American Honda Finance Corp. Plaintiff alleged that her employment with Honda was terminated in June 2004 and that her subsequent applications for re-hire were denied by Honda in October 2004 and again from January through April 2007.

Plaintiff filed an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in August 2007 (more than three years after her termination), and she filed this civil action on Aug. 26, 2009 (more than five years after her termination).

In her original civil complaint, plaintiff alleged causes of action for harassment and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA); intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; breach of an alleged implied employment contract and related breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent supervision and hiring; and, multiple wage and hour violations.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment she alleged she experienced from 1998 to the date of her termination in June 2004. She also claimed that Honda's termination was in breach of an implied employment contract and caused her emotional distress, among other related violations.

Plaintiff argued that all of her causes of action constituted "a single continuing violation" that began with the sexual harassment she allegedly experienced beginning in 1998 and extended through Honda's alleged denial of her employment application for re-hire in 2007 (which was the only conduct that occurred within one-year of the filing of her EEOC charge).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and American Honda Finance Corp. ("Honda") opposed plaintiff's claims through two successive demurrers in which Honda argued that all of her causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation (which ranged from one to four years) and further argued that plaintiff had failed to alleged facts sufficient to state claims for harassment or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Because plaintiff was terminated in June 2004, Honda argued that her civil action, filed more than five years later, was barred in its entirety.

Honda also argued that the so-called continuing violation theory could not be used to toll the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff's FEHA claims, which were also time barred.

Result

The court sustained Honda's initial demurrer to plaintiff's original complaint without leave to amend as to six of her 10 original causes of action, but granted leave to amend her claims for sexual harassment and retaliation under the FEHA, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint realleging these causes of action, to which Honda again demurred. The court sustained Honda's second Demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend, dismissing plaintiff's claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 26, 2009.