Beckwith
Beckwith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
ORDER
MEMORANDUM *
1. Beckwith alleges only one incident that falls within the limitations period: her co-worker’s throwing clothes on the floor and management’s response. This is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a finding of hostile work environment. See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 , 106 S.Ct. 2399 , 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). Beckwith is barred from alleging hostile work environment based on Black’s conduct, because it occurred more than one year prior to the date she filed her Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint, and therefore falls outside FEHA’s one-year statute of limitations. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960 (2000). Black’s conduct is not sufficiently related to the conduct falling within the limitations period so as to bring it within the scope of the continuing violation doctrine. See Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal, 88 Cal.App.4th 52 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652, 664 (Ct.App.2000).
2. We reject Beckwith’s claim that Wal-Mart failed to prevent discrimination and harassment. Wal-Mart’s conspicuously posted, well-disseminated policy against discrimination and harassment, training sessions on workplace discrimination and harassment,…