Scott v. Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 1977123 (9th Cir. 2018)

Taylor Scott sued GME in state court for sexual harassment and retaliation. Because Scott worked at a barbershop located on the United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, her state court action was removed to federal court under the federal enclave doctrine. After removal, GME filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the state law claims as preempted by the federal enclave doctrine. Before Scott filed an opposition to the motion, the parties filed a joint motion to allow Scott to file an amended complaint asserting only federal claims under Title VII. GME subsequently moved to dismiss Scott’s Title VII claims on the ground that they were time barred because she had failed to file them within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter. The district court granted GME’s motion for summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the 90-day clock for Scott to file suit began when she received the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The Court further held that Scott’s Title VII claims may be based on alleged acts that occurred after she filed her first complaint with the DFEH, but only to the extent such acts were part of a single unlawful employment practice (i.e., a “continuing violation”). Cf. Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 2018 WL 1790681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (employment action was properly dismissed for failure to bring case to trial within 5 years; no tolling for period during which a contested order to arbitrate was in effect).