Equitable Tolling
Equitable tolling is a judge-made rule that pauses a statute of limitations when an employee acted in good faith, pursued a parallel remedy, and the employer was not prejudiced by the delay. In a California employment case, tolling can be the difference between a live FEHA claim and a barred one. The California Supreme Court laid out the modern test in McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, building on Addison v. State of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Equitable tolling is a judge-made rule pausing a statute of limitations when the plaintiff acted in good faith and the defendant was not prejudiced.
- California's three-part test from McDonald v. Antelope Valley CCD (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88: timely notice, lack of prejudice, and reasonable good-faith conduct.
- Federal Title VII tolling is recognized under Zipes v. TWA (1982) 455 U.S. 385; courts pause the 180/300-day EEOC clock for fraud, wrong-forum filings, or pending parallel proceedings.
- Most common trigger: an internal HR investigation that ran long, followed by a CRD filing past the three-year FEHA window.
The Three-Part California Test
Under McDonald, a California court may toll a limitations period when the plaintiff shows (1) timely notice to the defendant of the first claim, (2) lack of prejudice to the defendant from the delay, and (3) reasonable, good-faith conduct in pursuing the second claim. The doctrine commonly applies when an employee pursued an internal grievance, a workers' compensation matter, or a CRD or EEOC charge before filing suit.
Federal Tolling Under Title VII
For federal claims, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1982) 455 U.S. 385 that the Title VII charge-filing window is subject to equitable tolling. Federal courts will pause the 180 or 300-day EEOC deadline when an employer's misconduct concealed the claim, when the employee filed in the wrong forum but on time, or when a pending state proceeding made parallel federal filing premature.
How Equitable Tolling Plays Out at Work
A nurse files an internal harassment grievance with HR in March 2024 and is told the company will investigate. HR drags the process out for fourteen months, then issues a finding of no wrongdoing. The nurse files with the CRD two months after the HR finding, just past the three-year FEHA window from the original conduct. A California court can toll the FEHA limitations period for the internal-grievance interval, because the employer had notice, suffered no prejudice, and the nurse reasonably believed she had to exhaust internal channels first.
When the Doctrine Will Not Save a Late Claim
Equitable tolling is not automatic. Courts deny it when the plaintiff sat on rights, when the employer can show real prejudice from the delay (lost witnesses, destroyed records), or when the second claim relies on a different legal theory the employer never had notice of. If you missed a CRD or EEOC window, a California employment discrimination lawyer can read the file and tell you whether McDonald tolling is realistic before you commit to a complaint.
From our practice: Tolling motions are won on the file, not the brief. We need the dated HR ticket, the dated complaint email, the dated investigator update, and the dated closure letter. Without that chain, even a sympathetic court will deny tolling. We tell clients to preserve every internal communication the day they think something is wrong, because the tolling argument depends on what the HR record actually shows months or years later.
Worried your filing window has closed?
Westview Law PC reviews California employment claims that look time-barred to see whether equitable tolling can revive them. Talk to David M. Safvati before you assume the door is shut.
Get a Free Case Evaluation
