Valdez

Valdez v. Nunley CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 2024B329294California1,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zukin, J.

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.