By yonah · 2026-03-18 · 7 min read
When CRD is the better forum, when the EEOC is, and when filing both is the right call. With practical timing implications for California employees.
California employees who have been discriminated against, harassed, retaliated against, or wrongfully terminated face an early procedural decision that frequently dictates the trajectory of the case, and that is where to file the charge. Three forums, three sets of timelines, and three different remedies. The choice is not academic.
The CRD (formerly the DFEH) is the state agency that administers the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code § 12900 et seq. For most California employees, the CRD is the correct primary forum.
FEHA charges generally must be filed with the CRD within three years of the alleged adverse action (Gov. Code § 12960). Once filed, an employee can request an immediate right-to-sue notice and proceed directly to state court. From issuance of the right-to-sue, the employee has one year to file the civil action (Gov. Code § 12965(c)(1)).
FEHA covers California employers with five or more employees, prohibits a broader set of protected categories than federal law (including marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military and veteran status, and medical condition), and authorizes uncapped compensatory and punitive damages plus statutory attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the ADEA, and related federal employment statutes are administered by the EEOC. The federal charge deadline is much shorter: 300 days from the adverse action in deferral states like California (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). Damages under Title VII are capped by employer size (42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)).
Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees; the ADEA applies at 20 or more. For an employee at a smaller employer, federal law may not reach the conduct at all, making FEHA, with its five-employee threshold, the only viable forum.
The CRD and the EEOC have a worksharing agreement, so a charge filed with one is generally cross-filed with the other, and a properly dual-filed charge preserves both state and federal claims. We dual-file as a default when the facts support claims under both statutes. There is no downside, and it preserves federal-court removal posture, statutory damages availability, and litigation optionality.
Dual filing is also a hedge against future statutory changes and against unfavorable state-court venire. Employees who want their case in federal court, or who want to keep the option open, should not waive the federal claim by filing CRD-only.
Wage-and-hour violations of the California Labor Code are independently actionable as representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2698 et seq.). PAGA requires written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency before suit is filed, accompanied by a $75 filing fee, and a one-year statute of limitations applies. Failure to provide PAGA notice on time is a statutory bar that cannot be cured.
PAGA is not a substitute for the CRD/EEOC charge. It addresses Labor Code violations (meal and rest breaks, off-the-clock work, wage statements, final pay), not FEHA discrimination. In a typical employment matter we evaluate all three forums in parallel: CRD for discrimination/harassment/retaliation, EEOC for federal-claim preservation, and PAGA for any independent Labor Code violations.
FEHA-only filing is appropriate when the employer is small (under 15), when the claim is FEHA-specific (e.g., marital status discrimination), or when state-court venue is strategically preferred and federal-claim preservation is not needed. Dual filing is appropriate in most other matters and should be the default unless there is an affirmative reason to limit. PAGA is added when wage-and-hour violations are present, and must be evaluated on its own one-year clock.
Get the forum decision wrong and the employer's first responsive pleading is a statute-of-limitations motion. Get it right, and you preserve every remedy the law allows.
This article is general information about California law. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney who knows the facts of your situation.
Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Yasmeh Law Group, and neither does contacting the firm. That relationship begins only after a conflicts check and a signed written engagement agreement. Do not send confidential information before then.
The statutes and deadlines described were accurate as understood on 2026-03-18. California law changes and any rule depends on the particular facts. Case results mentioned do not guarantee a similar outcome. Yasmeh Law Group practices only in California.
Serving Van Nuys, CA, Los Angeles County, and California. This page is informational and does not create an attorney-client relationship.