Pollock v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services, Inc.

Summary

The court held that a FEHA quid pro quo harassment claim based on a failure to promote accrues when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer’s adverse promotion decision, not merely when the employer makes that decision or promotes another employee. The defendant bears the burden of proving when the employee had actual or constructive knowledge of the decision. The court also held that a prevailing FEHA defendant may not receive costs on appeal without a finding that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and it therefore reversed, vacated the cost award, and remanded.