CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE – Continuing Violation

Single Topic for Decision 2721M

View all topics for Decision 2721M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

In San Dieguito Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 194 (San Dieguito), the Board “articulated three distinct exceptions to the six-month rule: ‘the charge may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one, if the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the six-month period, or if the limitation period was tolled.’” (City & County of San Francisco (2017) PERB Decision No. 2536, p. 15, fn. 14, quoting San Dieguito, supra, PERB Decision No. 194, p. 5.) In decisions such as San Dieguito, supra, PERB Decision No. 194, p. 5, and City & County of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2536, p. 15, fn. 14, the Board held that the continuing violation doctrine and the new wrongful act doctrine are separate exceptions to the statute of limitations. In unilateral change charges, the new wrongful act doctrine can apply if there are sufficient facts to support the exception, but the continuing violation doctrine does not apply. (See, e.g., City of Livermore (2014) PERB Decision No. 2396-M, p. 6 [“Under the applicable legal standard in unilateral change cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent.”].)