 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peacock v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency12/14/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Previously, we reversed the trial court's dismissal of Eric Peacock's lawsuit when Peacock failed to appear at what was essentially a status conference. Now, Peacock appeals from the dismissal of his fourth amended complaint. This time, the trial court correctly applied the statute of limitations, which bars Peacock's lawsuit based on conduct that occurred in 1994. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In his fourth amended complaint, Peacock sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). According to the operative pleading, Peacock applied to the MTA for the position of Transit Police Officer. Part of the application process included a vision test. Peacock requested to use corrective lenses, but that request was denied. Peacock did not pass the vision test. "With the use of soft contact lenses . . . . Plaintiff can perform the essential functions of the police officer position with the City of Los Angeles," and with the County of Los Angeles. "In late 1997 defendant MTA eliminated its Transit Police Department and shifted this function to the City and County."
Peacock alleged that the "causes of action stem from actions taken by Defendant MTA against Plaintiff Eric Peacock from September 1, 1994 to December 5, 1994." "A charge of employment discrimination on the basis of disability was filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing `DFEH' on December 28, 1994 . . . ." "A corresponding charge under the ADA was filed with the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] by the DFEH on Plaintiff's behalf. "Notification of Right to Sue was received from the California DFEH on or about December 28, 1995 . . . ." "Despite issuing a right-to-sue notice, Plaintiff continued to pursue the administrative remedy provided by the DFEH." "On or about November 30, 1998, Plaintiff was notified by DFEH that its case filed against Defendant MTA would be closed effective November 30, 1998, as plaintiff had elected court action." "On or about November 28, 1999, Plaintiff filed the present action in the Superior Court . . ."
With respect to his litigation in federal court, Peacock alleged, " n or about May 5, 1997, Plaintiff filed a discrimination cause of action in Federal Court under the Americans With Disabilities Act . . . . On November 1, 1999, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and Plaintiff's Motion for a 2nd Amended Complaint was denied."
Peacock attached correspondence from DFEH to his complaint. A letter dated June 1, 1995 provided that it constituted notice of Peacock's right to request a right-to-sue notice. "No action is required by you unless you decide to request a right-to-sue notice. If you choose to exercise this option you must: [ ] 1) notify DFEH in writing of your intent; and [ ] 2) provide your own legal counsel; and [ ] 3) file your lawsuit within one year from receipt of the right-to-sue notice. [ ] If you do request a right-to-sue DFEH will discontinue its investigation and close your case. If you do not request a right-to sue, DFEH will continue to process your complaint. A right-to-sue notice will then be issued upon conclusion of our investigation, or one year after your complaint was filed, whichever comes first."
DFEH wrote Peacock again on January 29,
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|