California Fair Employment and Housing Act: enforcement procedures.

Senator Blakespear’s measure grounds its approach to civil rights enforcement in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by defining a formal “group or class complaint” and aligning enforcement procedures to accommodate aggregated claims, while also broadening where enforcement actions may proceed and when key deadlines apply. The proposal introduces a new category of complaint and alters the sequencing and timing of actions, incorporating additional tolling during appeals and related proceedings.

A core aspect is the definition and treatment of group or class complaints to cover pattern or practice claims, alongside a set of tolling provisions that affect when a civil action may be filed. The bill would toll the period for filing a civil action from the initial complaint filing through the department’s action or closure, with extensions during timely appeals and specific petition processes. It would also toll the time for issuing right-to-sue notices after disposition of a director’s or group or class complaint, including the pendency of a petition to compel and the duration of any appeal. In parallel, the department would require parties to participate in mandatory dispute resolution before litigation proceeds, and both individual and group actions would remain subject to defined, time-bound pathways for litigation.

The bill would also modify venue rules by removing the set of counties currently described as permissible locations for filing civil actions, instead allowing, in group or class cases, the action to be brought in any county in the state. The deadlines for bringing civil actions would be adjusted in tandem with the group or class designation—two years following filing for group or class complaints, and one year for other cases—subject to tolling during dispute resolution, written agreements, petitions to compel, and timely department appeals. The provisions emphasize the realignment of procedural timelines and venue to reflect the aggregated nature of group or class enforcement.

In context, the measure seeks to clarify procedures for aggregated FEHA claims, streamline dispute resolution as a prelude to litigation, and expand procedural flexibility for enforcement actions across the state. By codifying the treatment of group or class complaints and extending tolling and venue options, the proposal interacts with existing timelines, notices, and court processes, while maintaining a framework for the department to pursue remedies and for aggrieved individuals to seek civil action where warranted. These changes collectively shift the mechanics of FEHA enforcement, with implications for claimants, respondents, and the department’s litigation posture.