Time does not always heal wounds. For many survivors of workplace sexual assault, it simply closes courthouse doors. But California has stepped in again to reopen them. Two landmark laws currently give adult survivors unprecedented opportunities to bring civil claims that were long thought to be gone forever, including claims against employers who concealed the truth.

If you were sexually assaulted at work, by a coworker or supervisor, or in a workplace setting, and you believed your time had run out, the law may have changed in your favor. Two revival windows are currently active in California, and both have firm deadlines that make prompt legal consultation essential.

The Legal Foundation: CCP Section 340.16 and Two Active Windows

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.16 governs civil claims for adult sexual assault. In its ordinary form, it gives survivors the later of ten years from the assault or three years from the date they discovered that an injury resulted from it.^[1] But California has now layered two separate revival provisions on top of that baseline, each with its own eligibility requirements and deadlines.

The first is Assembly Bill 2777, known as the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, signed by Governor Newsom in September 2022 and effective January 1, 2023. It creates a three-year lookback window allowing adult survivors to file civil claims for sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, even if those claims were already time barred. The window closes on December 31, 2026.^[2]

The second is Assembly Bill 250, signed by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2025, and effective January 1, 2026. It amends CCP Section 340.16 to create a new two-year revival window, running from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, specifically targeting claims against entities that engaged in institutional cover ups of sexual assault.^[3] In its short life, Section 340.16 has now been amended no fewer than four times in less than seven years as California continues to expand survivor rights.^[4]

What Counts as an Employer Cover Up?

Both laws hinge on a critical concept: the institutional cover up. Under CCP Section 340.16, a "cover up" means a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information from coming to light.^[5]

What may surprise many survivors, and many employers, is how broadly this is defined. The statute expressly identifies the use of nondisclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements concerning past allegations of sexual misconduct as potential cover up evidence. As legal analysts at Proskauer Rose have noted, this can include practices that were perfectly legal and relatively standard at the time they were executed. Entering into a confidentiality agreement with a prior victim, conducting an internal investigation and suppressing the findings, or even quietly reassigning an accused manager may all be treated as cover up conduct under the law.^[4]

This matters enormously for workplace claims. An employee who was assaulted by a supervisor, reported the assault to HR, and was then terminated or pressured to sign a severance agreement may have a claim not only for the assault but for the institutional concealment that followed.

Workplace Claims That Can Be Revived

The revival windows under AB 2777 and AB 250 are not limited to the civil assault claim itself. When an underlying sexual assault is revived, closely related employment claims may come with it. These include wrongful termination claims where a survivor was fired after reporting; retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act; hostile work environment and harassment claims tied to the same course of conduct; and constructive discharge claims where a survivor was forced out by conditions made intolerable after an assault.^[6]

Consider a warehouse employee in Los Angeles who was assaulted by a supervisor in 2014, reported the assault to human resources, and was terminated weeks later. Under prior law, both the assault claim and the retaliatory termination claim would likely have been time barred years ago. Under AB 250, both may be revived, as long as the survivor files between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027.^[6]

Critical Deadlines You Must Not Miss

The deadlines under both laws are absolute. Courts will not extend them for late filings. As of today, two separate countdowns are running simultaneously. The AB 2777 window closes on December 31, 2026. Any survivor whose assault occurred on or after January 1, 2009, who has not already filed or settled, has until that date to file under AB 2777.^[2]

The AB 250 window runs through December 31, 2027, and is specifically designed to capture cover up claims. Many survivors may qualify for both windows simultaneously, meaning two independent legal theories are available before the earlier deadline closes. Legal analysts anticipate a rush of filings as these deadlines approach, similar to the wave seen before prior windows closed.^[3]

A critical exception applies to claims against government entities. Survivors whose claims involve public employers, public schools, or county facilities should not assume either revival law applies. Claims against public entities often require filing an administrative claim within as little as six months and are explicitly excluded from both AB 2777 and AB 250.^[1]

What Damages Can Survivors Recover?

Civil claims filed under these revival windows can seek significant compensation. Available remedies include economic damages for lost wages, lost earning capacity, and medical and therapy expenses; noneconomic damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and psychological harm; punitive damages against employers who engaged in particularly egregious or malicious cover up conduct; and attorneys fees and litigation costs where applicable. Unlike federal law, California places no cap on noneconomic or punitive damages in FEHA related claims, making the potential recovery substantially higher than what would be available in federal court.^[7]

The Bottom Line

California's revival windows under AB 2777 and AB 250 represent a rare second chance for survivors who were silenced by time, institutional pressure, or coercive agreements. These laws recognize what legal systems have long ignored: that survivors often cannot come forward immediately, and that the institutions that enabled or concealed abuse should not benefit from that delay.

If you were sexually assaulted in a workplace setting, harassed by a supervisor or employer, retaliated against for reporting, or pressured to sign a confidentiality agreement, your time may not be as expired as you have been led to believe. At Smith Reback Law, we help survivors evaluate their rights under both revival windows, pursue claims for assault, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination, and hold employers accountable for the cultures and cover ups that made the harm possible. Your consultation is completely confidential. Do not wait.