Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

October 31, 2019

Joyce CARROLL, Plaintiff and Appellant,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents.

          As Modified on Denial of Rehearing 11/27/2019

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 521] San Francisco City & County Superior Court, Hon. Mary E. Wiss (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-562580)

Page 806

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 807

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 808


         Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Reed W. L. Marcy, Hallie L. Von Rock, Carey A. James, Oakland, Brent A. Robinson, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

         Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Katherine H. Porter, Joseph M. Lake, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.


         BROWN, J.

Page 809

          Plaintiff Joyce Carroll appeals the trial court’s entry of a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of her age discrimination complaint under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code,[1] � 12900 et seq.). The dismissal followed the court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrer on the ground that plaintiff did not file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the date the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. (� 12960, subd. (d).) We conclude that plaintiff’s disparate treatment and disparate impact claims were timely with respect to the allegedly discriminatory disability retirement payments plaintiff received within one year of the date on which she filed her DFEH complaint. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Page 810


         Plaintiff was 43 years old when she began working for the City and County of San Francisco (City or defendants). She worked for the City for approximately 15 years before retiring at age 58 due to rheumatoid arthritis. On June 22, 2000, plaintiff applied for disability retirement, and the City granted her request "[s]hortly thereafter." Since then, plaintiff has received monthly disability retirement benefit payments from defendants.

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 522] Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendants discriminate on the basis of age in violation of FEHA by providing reduced disability retirement benefits to older employees who took disability retirement after working for the City for less than 22.22 years.

         The Charter for the City and County of San Francisco (Charter) contains the formula that defendants use to calculate the benefit for employees who retire due to disability.[2] Charter section A8.584-3 applies to individuals, like plaintiff, who were classified as miscellaneous employees and who began working for the City after November 1, 1976. Charter section A8.584-3 provides the following formula for disability benefits for employees whose retirement allowance does not exceed one-third of their average final compensation: "1 1/2 percent of [the employee’s] average final compensation multiplied by the number of years of City service which would be credited to [the employee] were such City service to continue until attainment by [the employee] of age 60."[3] Under this formula, when an employee has worked for the City for at least 10 years but must retire due to disability, the City credits additional service time to the employee to increase his or her disability retirement benefit if his or her retirement allowance falls below one-third of his or her average final compensation. However, the City limits this imputed service time to the number of years the disabled employee would have worked for the City had he or she continued City employment until age 60. Defendants referred to these imputed service years as "bonus years" in the letter to plaintiff explaining her retirement disability calculation.

          For example, plaintiff retired at age 58 after 15 years of service with two "bonus years," resulting in approximately 17 years of service. Defendants

Page 811

credited her with 16.75 years of service, estimating her retirement benefit to be "equal to 25.125% of her final average salary." In contrast, an employee who was hired at age 18 with 15 years of service and 27 years of imputed service, resulting in a total of 42 years of service, would receive a retirement benefit of 33.33 percent of her final average salary (Charter, � A8.584-3 sets a maximum benefit of one-third). Plaintiff alleges that because Charter section A8.584-3 provides employees who were hired over the age of 40 with "reduced retirement benefit[s]," defendants violate FEHA by intentionally discriminating against these employees on the basis of age and by using a standard policy that has a disparate impact on older employees.

          Plaintiff alleged that she became aware that defendants paid her retirement benefits based on her age after seeing an advertisement on or about July 20, 2017, which was more than 17 years after her retirement. She filed her complaint with the DFEH on November 17, 2017.

         Defendants demurred, arguing that the statute of limitations barred her claims because she failed to timely file an administrative charge with the DFEH. The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend to allow the substitution of a new [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 523] named representative to properly represent the class. Plaintiff appealed.[4]


          I. Standard of Review

          When a trial court sustains a demurrer, we independently review the complaint to determine whether it states a valid cause of action, accepting all factual allegations as true. (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 21 P.3d 1189.) We construe the allegations liberally and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. (Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 413, 422, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 300.) " ‘A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order for the bar of the statute of limitations to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.’ " 

Page 812

(Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 748.) When a court sustains a demurrer without leave to amend, we review for abuse of discretion the determination that amendment could not cure the defects, reversing only if the plaintiff bears his or her burden of establishing a reasonable possibility that amendment could cure the defects. (Brown ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.