MICHAEL HALL v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA








Filed 3/16/11





CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

B215860 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC345349)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Leslie Ann Boyce and Leslie Ann Boyce for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller and Ernest Slome for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________



Plaintiff and Appellant Michael Hall filed suit against Goodwill Industries of Southern California (Goodwill) alleging a retaliation claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), and wrongful termination. The trial court granted summary judgment to Goodwill on the ground that Hall's action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court subsequently denied Hall's motion for a new trial based on a claim that newly discovered evidence permitted the court to apply equitable tolling principles to the limitations period. We conclude that the one-year limitations period set forth in Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b) (section 12965(b)) began to run as of the date of the right-to-sue notice issued to Hall and, as a result, Hall's complaint was untimely filed. We further conclude the trial court properly denied Hall's motion for a new trial because he did not present any newly discovered evidence in support of the motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2004, Hall filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH or department). Hall alleged that after he supported a coworker who was being sexually harassed by a supervisor and helped her complain about the harassment, Goodwill retaliated against him and terminated his employment for pretextual reasons. Hall requested an immediate right-to-sue notice. Hall's coworker's counsel, Attorney Boyce, helped him file the administrative complaint. Although Hall did not retain Boyce at that time, she agreed to let him use her address to receive mail from the DFEH. The DFEH issued a notice of case closure and right-to-sue notice on December 24, 2004. Boyce received the right-to-sue notice on December 31, 2004.
According to Hall, after Goodwill terminated his employment he was unable to find new work. He became homeless and grew â€