Retaliation
Government Claim Forms Must State a Date for Ongoing Retaliation
Updated
In Khedr v. Superior Court, the First District Court of Appeal held that a government claim form alleging continuing retaliatory and harassing conduct must still state a date or date range for the wrongful conduct. Because the petitioners’ forms listed the date of loss only as “Numerous—Loss is ongoing” and supplied no dates in their narratives, the court held the forms neither complied nor substantially complied with the Government Claims Act and denied the writ petition. The opinion was certified for publication on July 13, 2026.
Background
Victor Khedr and Syed Husain were part-time police officers with the Broadmoor Police Protection District. They alleged they were retaliated against and eventually terminated after reporting fiscal mismanagement and conflict-of-interest violations involving a former commissioner and chief of police.
On January 19, 2021, each submitted a claim form to the District. In the space for “Date of Loss,” both wrote “Numerous—Loss is ongoing.” Their narrative descriptions listed multiple specific events—threats, interrogations, disparaging statements, and false claims—but attached no dates to any of them.
The District sent notices of insufficiency stating the claims did not specify a date of loss and gave the officers 15 days to correct the defect. They did not respond, and the claims were rejected.
After the officers sued, the San Mateo County Superior Court sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to four causes of action—whistleblower retaliation, a Tom Bane Civil Rights Act claim, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—finding the claim forms failed to state the date of the alleged incidents. The officers sought writ review.
What the Court Held on the Date Requirement
Government Code section 910, subdivision (c) requires a claim to state “the date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.” The purpose, the court explained, is to give the public entity enough information to investigate and, where appropriate, settle a claim without litigation.
The petitioners relied on Knight v. City of Los Angeles, where a claim describing continuous flooding was upheld because it gave a span of time. The court distinguished Knight: there the claimant provided a date range, while here the forms provided no dates or date ranges at all, even in the narratives listing discrete events.
The court agreed that retaliation may involve a continuing course of conduct, but held that claims involving ongoing misconduct are not exempt from section 910(c). It noted that a third petitioner had submitted a form the same day that included dates for some events and was found to be in substantial compliance.
A government claim form alleging ongoing retaliatory or harassing conduct must still specify a date or date range for the wrongful conduct under Government Code section 910, subdivision (c). Stating the date of loss as “numerous” and “ongoing,” with a signed and dated form, does not satisfy that requirement.
What the Court Held on Substantial Compliance
The petitioners argued in the alternative that their forms substantially complied. The court explained that substantial compliance turns on whether the claim gave the entity enough information to investigate the merits and settle without a lawsuit, but that the doctrine cannot rest on no compliance at all with a statutory requirement.
Because the forms tethered none of the alleged conduct to any date or date range, the court found they did not substantially comply with section 910. It added that even a public entity’s actual knowledge of the circumstances does not excuse compliance with the claims statutes, and that the continuing-violation doctrine, if anything, underscores the need for dates. The petition for writ of mandate was denied.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that a government claim form alleging ongoing retaliation or harassment must still state a date or date range for the wrongful conduct under Government Code section 910, subdivision (c). It confirms that describing the date of loss only as “numerous” and “ongoing” neither complies nor substantially complies with the Government Claims Act. The ruling touches disputes against public entities where a claim form precedes suit.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.