Continuing Violations Doctrine
The continuing violations doctrine lets an employee bring a harassment or discrimination claim that includes acts older than the standard filing deadline, as long as the conduct is part of a single, ongoing course of unlawful behavior. The doctrine recognizes that some workplace harm builds up incident by incident and that strict deadlines would punish employees who tried to work it out internally first.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The doctrine lets a plaintiff bring claims based on conduct outside the filing window when the conduct is part of one continuing course of unlawful behavior.
- California's controlling case is Richards v. CH2M Hill (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, requiring similar conduct, reasonable frequency, and a lack of permanence.
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101 applies the same logic to federal hostile-work-environment claims.
- Discrete acts (a firing, a single denied promotion) start their own clock; only a pattern of harassment or denied accommodation pulls older conduct forward.
California's controlling decision is Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798. Under Richards, conduct outside the FEHA filing window is actionable if (1) it is sufficiently similar in kind to conduct inside the window, (2) it occurred with reasonable frequency, and (3) it had not acquired a degree of permanence (meaning the employee had no clear reason to believe further internal resolution was futile). Once permanence sets in, the clock runs.
The doctrine is most often used in hostile-work-environment and failure-to-accommodate cases, where the harm comes from a pattern, not a single discrete act. The U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion for federal harassment claims in Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan (2002) 536 U.S. 101.
Example: A factory worker reports racially derogatory comments by her plant supervisor in January 2023, March 2023, and August 2023. Her formal CRD charge is filed in December 2025, almost three years after the August 2023 incident. Under Richards, the earlier 2023 incidents are part of the same course of conduct, and because she repeatedly raised concerns to HR without resolution, the conduct had not acquired permanence until HR closed her last complaint. The full pattern is actionable under FEHA at Gov. Code §12960.
If you have been dealing with workplace conduct for months or years, do not assume the older incidents are time-barred. A workplace harassment attorney can analyze whether the doctrine pulls earlier conduct into your case.
From our practice: Continuing violations is the second-chance doctrine. Employees who tried to work it out through HR, then watched the clock run, are the people who benefit most. We look hard at the HR communication record. A formal investigation followed by an opaque "no findings" letter often marks the permanence date, not the original incidents. That distinction can save a case that looks dead on its face.
Attorney Advertising. Page reviewed by David M. Safvati, CA Bar #326605. This advertisement is the responsibility of Westview Law PC.
