Sonoco Products Company makes packaging, including paper canisters for frozen juice and other products. Steven Hernandez – who is now in his 50s – began working for Sonoco in 1987 when he was 18. Hernandez was represented by Teamsters District Council 2 and was subject to the terms of its labor agreement with Sonoco.

Sometime between 2013 and 2016, Hernandez began suffering pain in his hands due to arthritis. Hernandez sought medical treatment and began taking intermittent leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (and/or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA)).

Sonoco uses forms to track employee absences. Employees with unexcused absences accumulate points. In November 2017, a supervisor gave Hernandez a form stating he had violated Sonoco’s attendance policy. The form warned Hernandez to “correct” his attendance immediately, noting he could be terminated if he accumulated more points. After a further dispute about Hernandez’s attendance, and an investigation into his attendance points, which “confirmed” he had “provided false information to the company,” Sonoco fired Hernandez on December 18, 2017.

Hernandez filed a grievance through the union. Hernandez’s union representatives asked Sonoco to reinstate him subject to a last chance agreement (LCA). The company agreed. Hernandez returned to work that month.

One of Sonoco’s safety rules required employees who used the compactor – which crushed trash – to close the guard or gate before leaving the area. On December 12, 2018, Hernandez left open the guard gate on a company compactor. OSHA regulates these machines because of their danger to workers. Sonoco fired Hernandez because he left open the guard gate on a company compactor.

In 2020, Hernandez sued Sonoco and others for disability and age discrimination and related employment claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Hernandez had filed his administrative complaint about his dismissal on September 20, 2019. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that, given the one-year statute of limitations, the limitations period was September 20, 2018 – one year before Hernandez filed – to September 20, 2019, although Hernandez was terminated on December 12, 2018. The trial court ruled litigation about events before September 20, 2018 was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Hernandez v. Sonoco Products Company – B325376 (March 2025).

“A plaintiff suing for violations of FEHA ordinarily cannot recover for acts occurring more than one year before the filing of the DFEH complaint.” (Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1400 (Jumaane).) As Hernandez filed his DFEH complaint on September 20, 2019, any of his claims based on alleged unlawful conduct that took place before September 20, 2018 are barred.

Hernandez contends his DFEH complaint was timely as to Sonoco’s conduct before September 20, 2018 – including his 2017 termination and the LCA – based on the continuing violations doctrine, equitable estoppel, and equitable tolling.

The continuing violations doctrine allows a plaintiff to impose liability for unlawful employer conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations if the conduct is sufficiently connected to unlawful conduct within the limitations period. (Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 802 (Richards).)

The doctrine requires the plaintiff to prove that (1) the conduct occurring outside the limitations period was similar or related to the conduct that occurred within the limitations period; (2) the conduct was reasonably frequent; and (3) the conduct had not yet become permanent. (Ibid.; Richards, at p. 823.)

The Last Chance Agreement was a permanent resolution of the earlier conflict between Hernandez and Sonoco. As a matter of law, this document put Hernandez on notice that further efforts at informal conciliation with Sonoco to obtain accommodation or to end harassment would be futile.

The trial court rejected Hernandez’s attempt to invoke equitable estoppel because his complaint did not allege it, as is required. Moreover, Hernandez presented no evidence in opposition to Sonoco’s summary judgment motion to support the imposition of an estoppel based on his having signed the LCA.

Hernandez contends his filing of his workers’ compensation claim on February 4, 2019 should equitably toll the statute of limitations as to his harassment cause of action. He says his allegation in the claim that he suffered “ ‘psych and stress (due to harassment and pressure from management)’ ” should have “alerted Flores and Sonoco to begin investigating the facts that formed the basis of [his] harassment claims under FEHA.”

“Two problems independently defeat Hernandez’s argument in this court about equitable tolling. First, he neither pleaded the elements of equitable tolling nor alleged he’d filed a worker’s compensation claim on February 4, 2019. Second, Hernandez did not timely raise the issue of equitable tolling in the trial court.”

Workers’ Comp Claim Does Not Toll FEHA Statute of Limitations