Filing Deadlines in California Employment Cases: A Comprehensive Guide
Every employment claim has a deadline. Miss it, and the claim may be gone — regardless of how strong it was. The deadlines vary by claim type, and they do not wait for the employee to learn about them. This guide consolidates them in one place.
Statutes of limitations exist to impose finality. They ensure that claims are brought while the evidence is still fresh, the witnesses are still available, and the parties can still reconstruct what happened. They also mean that an employee who waits too long to act may lose the right to act at all.
California employment claims are governed by a patchwork of deadlines — some measured in years, some in months, some in days. They apply to different claims in different ways, and they can overlap, creating situations in which one claim is timely while another, arising from the same facts, is not. What follows is a consolidated reference.
FEHA claims: discrimination, harassment, retaliation
Administrative complaint: 3 years. Before filing a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employee must file an administrative complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly DFEH). The deadline is three years from the date of the alleged unlawful practice. This three-year period was established by Assembly Bill 9, effective January 1, 2020. For violations that occurred before that date, the prior one-year deadline may apply.
Right-to-sue notice: 1 year. After filing the CRD complaint, the employee may request an immediate right-to-sue notice. Once the notice is issued, the employee has one year to file a civil action in court. This one-year deadline runs from the date the CRD issues the notice, not from the date of the underlying violation.
The two periods run separately. Filing a CRD complaint near the end of three years and obtaining an immediate right-to-sue notice can produce a court deadline roughly four years after the violation. That is an example, not a universal outer limit: investigation, statutory extensions, and applicable tolling can change the dates. Calendar the administrative deadline and the actual notice-based court deadline separately.
Continuing violation doctrine. In cases involving a pattern of harassment or a series of related discriminatory acts, the continuing violation doctrine may extend the limitations period. If the employer’s unlawful conduct is ongoing — a continuing course of harassment, a persistent refusal to accommodate — the limitations period may be measured from the most recent act in the pattern, and earlier acts that would otherwise be time-barred may be included as part of the continuing violation.
EEOC / federal claims
EEOC charge: 300 days. An employee who wishes to preserve federal claims under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA must file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged violation. This deadline is substantially shorter than the three-year FEHA deadline. Employees who intend to pursue both state and federal claims must be attentive to the shorter federal window.
Federal lawsuit: ordinarily 90 days after receipt. For Title VII and ADA claims, suit generally must be filed within 90 days after receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue notice. ADEA claims have a different sequence: an employee may generally sue after 60 days have elapsed from filing the charge, without waiting for a right-to-sue notice, but must act within 90 days after receiving notice that the EEOC proceedings have concluded. Federal employees use a separate administrative process. See the EEOC’s filing guidance.
The CRD and EEOC have a work-sharing agreement that allows a complaint filed with one agency to be cross-filed with the other. An employee filing a CRD complaint should request cross-filing with the EEOC to preserve federal claims, particularly if the 300-day EEOC deadline is approaching.
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
2 years. A common-law Tameny claim — wrongful termination in violation of public policy — is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The period runs from the date of the termination.
This is shorter than the three-year FEHA deadline and shorter than the three-year deadline for most Labor Code claims. An employee with a potential Tameny claim should be aware that this deadline may expire while other claims remain timely.
Wage and hour claims
3 years for most claims. Claims for unpaid wages — including overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest break premiums, and other compensation — are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 338.
4 years under the UCL. When wage claims are brought as unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200, the limitations period extends to four years. This additional year can be significant in cases involving long-running violations.
Waiting time penalties: 3 years. Claims for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 (failure to pay all wages upon termination) are subject to a three-year limitations period.
Wage statement penalties: 1 year. Claims for inaccurate wage statements under Labor Code section 226 are subject to a one-year limitations period. This is one of the shortest deadlines in California employment law and is frequently missed.
PAGA
1 year, with statutory tolling. PAGA generally has a one-year limitations period. A timely, compliant notice initiates the required administrative process, and Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (e), excludes its specified periods from the time allowed to commence the civil action. The employee does not automatically lose the claim merely because the administrative waiting period runs beyond the original anniversary. Notice timing, the personally experienced violations, and the eventual lawsuit deadline must all be calculated; “one year from the most recent violation” is not a complete calculation.
The one-year PAGA deadline is significantly shorter than the three-year deadline for individual wage claims. An employee who waits two years to pursue a wage violation may still have an individual claim but may have lost the PAGA claim — and with it, the ability to recover civil penalties on behalf of the broader workforce.
WARN Act
3 years. Claims under the federal and California WARN Acts for failure to provide advance notice of a mass layoff or plant closing are generally subject to a three-year statute of limitations under California law.
Workers’ compensation retaliation
1 year. Claims under Labor Code section 132a for retaliation based on the filing of a workers’ compensation claim must be filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board within one year of the discriminatory act.
Whistleblower retaliation
3 years. Claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.
An employee who also has a Tameny claim based on the same whistleblowing activity faces a two-year deadline on the Tameny claim — one year shorter than the statutory claim. Both deadlines should be tracked independently.
Breach of written contract
4 years. A claim for breach of a written employment contract is subject to a four-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.
Breach of oral contract
2 years. A claim for breach of an oral employment contract is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 339.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
2 years. A tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.
Defamation
1 year. A claim for defamation — libel or slander — is subject to a one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (c). This is one of the shortest deadlines and applies to claims against former employers who provide false references or engage in blacklisting.
Practical considerations
Several points apply across all of these deadlines.
The clock starts on the date of the adverse action. For termination claims, this is the date of the termination. For failure-to-hire claims, it is the date the applicant was informed of the decision (or should have known of it). For ongoing violations, it may be the date of the most recent act.
Tolling may apply. Certain circumstances can pause the limitations period — for example, if the employee was unaware of the facts giving rise to the claim and could not reasonably have discovered them (the discovery rule), or if the employer actively concealed the wrongdoing (equitable tolling). Tolling is fact-specific and should not be relied upon without legal advice.
Deadlines are not interchangeable. An employee with multiple claims may face different deadlines for each one. The one-year PAGA deadline may expire while the three-year FEHA deadline is still running. The two-year Tameny deadline may expire while the three-year whistleblower deadline is still running. Each claim’s deadline must be tracked independently.
Earlier is always better. The deadlines described above are outer limits, not recommended timelines. Filing early preserves evidence, ensures witnesses are available, and maximizes the employee’s options. An employee who consults with an attorney promptly after a termination — within weeks or months, not years — is in the strongest possible position.
Every claim has a deadline, and the deadlines vary. The most important step is to identify which claims are available, determine which deadlines apply, and act before the shortest one expires. A consultation with an employment attorney can map these deadlines to your specific situation and ensure that no claim is lost to the passage of time.
This article is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Every situation turns on its particular facts.