Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1

The two-year limitations period for personal-injury and public-policy tort claims

At a glance

A two-year clock governs personal-injury actions — including the common-law tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Citation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1
Period
2 years
Applies to
Tameny public-policy claims
Runs from
Date of termination (generally)

Read the official text at California Legislative Information →

JDBy Jonathan J. DelshadFounder & Editor-in-Chief

Overview

Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 establishes a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions. In the employment context its most important application is to the common-law tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy — the Tameny claim — which California courts treat as an action for injury to the person governed by this two-year period.

Because wrongful-termination plaintiffs frequently combine a Tameny claim with statutory claims that carry their own, different deadlines, getting the limitations analysis right requires matching each cause of action to its correct period.

The two-year period

The rule

An action for injury to or for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another must be brought within two years. For a wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim, that period generally runs from the date of termination.

Application and distinctions

Section 335.1 governs the Tameny public-policy tort, but it does not govern every employment claim. FEHA claims carry their own administrative and civil deadlines (Gov. Code §§ 12960, 12965), and statutory-liability claims may be governed by the three-year period of Code of Civil Procedure section 338. Plead the limitations theory for each claim separately. (See Tameny; Code Civ. Proc. § 338.)

Practice notes

Calendar the two-year period from the date of termination for a Tameny claim, and separately track FEHA deadlines and any statutory-penalty limitations. Where accrual is disputed, analyze the date the cause of action arose and any applicable tolling.

Cases
Related statutes

Practitioner analysis, current as of June 2026 — not the statute itself. Statutes are amended and decisional law evolves; confirm the operative language and current authority at the official source before relying.