e-Bulletin: California Supreme Court Holds that a Six-Month Statute of Limitations Applies to Cases Filed Under the Meyers-Milias Brown Act

The Meyers-Milias Brown Act (“MMBA”) (Gov’t Code §§ 3500 et seq.) governs employer-employee relations between most local public agencies, such as cities, counties and special districts, and their employees. On July 1, 2001, Government Code section 3509 went into effect and conferred initial jurisdiction over cases filed under the MMBA with the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”). Prior to this time, PERB already had initial jurisdiction over the other six public employer-employee relations statutes, such as the Educational Employment Relations Act (“EERA”) (Gov’t Code §§ 3540 et seq.), which applies to K-12 public school districts. While all of the other public employer-employee relations statutes contain an enumerated six-month statute of limitations, the MMBA does not.

Since the MMBA does not have an enumerated statute of limitations, PERB took the position that the general three-year statute of limitations found at Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a), which applies to actions based on alleged statutory violations, applied to the MMBA. PERB also noted that, prior to it being conferred jurisdiction over the MMBA, a party could file an action directly in the Superior Court and argued that under that scenario a three-year statute of limitations applied.

The plaintiff challenged PERB’s position and argued that a six-month statute of limitations, consistent with the other public employer-employee relations statutes, should apply. The California Supreme Court noted that no published decision ever expressly held that a three-year statute of limitations applied to the MMBA. Further, the Court noted that the three-year statute of limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) does not apply to administrative proceedings. In reviewing the Legislature’s intent, the Court stated that, in conferring PERB with jurisdiction over the MMBA, the Court assumes the Legislature knew that the three-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) was inapplicable to an administrative agency (PERB). Further, the Court stated that there was no rationale for applying a statute of limitations to the MMBA which is six times longer than the six-months allowed under the six other public employer-employee relations statutes. In sum, the Court stated that it was reasonable to infer that the Legislature intended to create a coherent and harmonious system of public employment relations laws in which all charges filed with the PERB are subject to the same six-month limitations period.

The Court also addressed the issues of the retroactivity of the six-month statute of limitations. The Court stated that the six-month statute of limitations became effective on July 1, 2001, when PERB was conferred with jurisdiction over the MMBA. The Court noted that legislation which shortens a statute of limitations is procedural in nature and applies retroactively to existing causes of action, provided the parties are given a reasonable amount of time to bring their case. In determining the amount of time that was reasonable in this case, the Court held that a charge filed with the PERB was timely if brought within three years of the occurrence of the unfair practice, or within six months of July 1, 2001 (i.e., before January 1, 2002), whichever was sooner.