In Snipes v. City of Bakersfield (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 861, the superior court complaint alleged that the defendant city had a practice of refusing to hire black police officers and had refused to hire the plaintiff due to his race, and had thus engaged in unlawful employment practices. ( Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, supra, 145 Cal. App. 3d at p. 863.) Snipes ruled as it did because it found that the purposes and procedures of FEHA demonstrated a legislative intent that FEHA actions be excepted from the Tort Claims Act, noting that "The procedural guidelines and the time framework provided in the FEHA are special rules for this particular type of claim which control over the general rules governing claims against governmental entities. The FEHA not only creates a statutory cause of action, but sets out a comprehensive scheme for administrative enforcement, emphasizing conciliation, persuasion, and voluntary compliance, and containing specific limitations periods." ( Snipes, supra, 145 Cal. App. 3d at p. 868, italics in the original.) Snipes found that compliance with FEHA satisfied the purposes of the Tort Claims Act presentation requirement, "to give the governmental entity an opportunity to settle claims before suit is brought, to permit early investigation of the facts, to facilitate fiscal planning for potential liabilities, and to avoid similar liabilities in the future. The provisions of the FEHA for filing of a complaint with the department, administrative investigation, and service of the complaint on the employer serve a similar function." ( Id. at p. 869.)