California law prohibits harassment in the workplace, whether it be
Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, if you experience harassment, you may have the right to sue your employer for damages.
In 2020, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing – the government agency responsible for enforcing California sexual harassment laws – received almost 8,000 complaints of sexual harassment alone. (This figure doesn’t even include other forms of prohibited harassment.) 1 2
Complaints and lawsuits alleging sexual and other forms of workplace harassment are common enough in California that every employer needs to be aware of the basics of harassment law. By the same token, you should be aware of your rights when you are confronted with a potential harassment case.
Below, our California labor and employment attorneys discuss some of the most frequently asked questions we encounter about California harassment law:
- 1. How does California law define workplace harassment?
- 2. What about harassment other than sexual harassment?
- 3. What if the harassment is not by a supervisor or boss?
- 4. How do I bring a workplace harassment lawsuit?
- 5. What can employers do to prevent workplace harassment?
- 6. How should an employer respond to a complaint?
- 7. What is the difference between discrimination and harassment?
- 8. Is sexual harassment training mandatory in California workplaces?
- 9. Other types of harassment in California
If, after reading this article, you have further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us at Shouse Law Group.
1. How does California law define workplace harassment?
The legal definition of workplace harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) encompasses two distinct forms of harassing behavior. These are:
- “Quid pro quo” harassment, in which a supervisor asks you to engage in sexual activity as a condition of receiving some form of benefit at work (a promotion, a raise, retention in your job, etc.); and
- “Hostile work environment” harassment, in which harassing conduct and workplace bullying create an abusive work environment for you.3
Quid pro quo harassment is a form of sexual harassment only.
By contrast, a hostile work environment does not need to involve sexual harassment. Or have anything to do with sex or gender. Hostile work environment harassment can be based on
- national origin or
- sexual orientation, to name just a few examples.4
But in order for you to have a valid claim of California harassment under the “hostile work environment” theory, you need to be able to show that the harassment was either
- severe, or
This means that isolated, minor incidents of insensitive behavior don’t constitute harassment under Government Code 12940.5
Below are several examples that illustrate the legal definition of harassment in California labor law:
Example: Ana’s boss has been making it clear for some time that he finds her attractive. One day she asks him for help in dealing with a difficult coworker. He tells her he will help--but only if she will have a drink with him after work. He then proceeds to grope her without her consent.
Ana’s experience of unwelcome touching probably meets the legal definition of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Example: Tim is a gay man working at a construction company. His coworkers are all straight men. They frequently use homophobic language and epithets around him and make jokes about him wanting to sleep with other men at their work. Several times Tim has found sexually crude drawings left at his desk.
Tim may have a claim for hostile work environment sexual and sexual orientation harassment.
It is also important to note that male and female employees are not the only people in California with the right to file harassment claims. California workplace harassment law also extends to:
- Job applicants;
- Unpaid interns;
- Volunteers; and
- People providing services pursuant to a contract (including independent contractors doing work for an employer).6
2. What about harassment other than sexual harassment?
As we discussed above, sexual harassment cases are not the only form of harassment recognized in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Government Code 12940 GC prohibits non-sexual workplace harassment on any of the following bases (“protected classes”):
- National origin,
- Immigration retaliation,
- Physical or mental disability,
- Medical condition or genetic information,
- Marital status,
- Gender identity or gender expression,
- Sexual orientation, or
- Military/veteran status.7
Example: Rashid is a Muslim high school teacher. The principal at his school makes frequent derogatory comments about Muslims, saying things along the lines of “they are all terrorists” and “they should be rounded up and sent back to where they came from.”
Rashid may have a claim against his employer for hostile work environment harassment on the basis of religion. Any reasonable person in his position would have a difficult time working under those circumstances.
3. What if the harassment is not by a supervisor or boss?
“Quid pro quo” sexual harassment – conditioning an employment benefit on sexual favors or activity – usually involves a supervisor or boss who is in a position to arrange employment benefits. But hostile work environment harassment – sexual or otherwise – can be committed by coworkers as well as by bosses.
In fact, hostile work environment harassment at a workplace can be perpetrated by people who don’t even work there, such as
- clients or
- visiting contractors.
This is often referred to as “third-party sexual harassment.” 9
But the law regarding the responsibility of employers for harassment is different for alleged harassment by supervisors versus alleged harassment by co-workers or other parties.
If harassment is alleged to have been committed by a supervisor, then the employer is strictly liable for the harassment – even if the employer’s behavior was not negligent in any way.10
But if the harassment was committed by someone other than a supervisor, then the employer is only liable if it behaved negligently with respect to the harassment.11 A negligent employer is one that
- knew or should have known about the harassment, but
- failed to take appropriate corrective action.
We should also mention that California law, Civil Code 51.9, provides you a right to sue if you are a victim of sexual harassment in professional relationships by someone such as a
- therapist, etc.
This law applies only to professional relationships that are not easy to terminate and uses the same definition of sexual harassment as the FEHA.
4. How do I bring a workplace harassment lawsuit?
Experiencing sexual or other forms of unlawful harassment in the workplace can be a profoundly unsettling experience. But California employment law, including the FEHA, means that you do not need to suffer in silence.
Our California labor and employment lawyers recommend that you take the following steps if you are facing harassment:
- Tell someone in the organization about the harassment--either a supervisor or a member of the Human Resources Department. This person may be able to put a stop to the harassment. And even if that does not happen, this step will help you make your case if you eventually need to file a complaint or lawsuit about the harassment.
- File a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”), formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). This step is required before one can file a workplace harassment lawsuit in California.
- Wait for the CRD to issue a “right to sue” notice (this may be done right away, or following an investigation of the complaint by CRD). Once the notice is issued, you or your employment attorney may file a civil lawsuit against the harasser and/or the employer seeking monetary damages, including for emotional distress. It may also be possible to get punitive damages and attorney’s fees.12
There are time limits for bringing harassment complaints or workplace harassment lawsuits.
CRD complaints generally must be filed within three (3) years after harassment occurs.13
Similarly, a civil lawsuit must be filed within one (1) year of receipt of a “right to sue” notice from CRD.14
It is important to note that California harassment law also prohibits workplace retaliation (so-called “FEHA retaliation,” which could include wrongful termination or wrongful constructive termination) against you if you complain about harassment or participate in harassment investigations.15
5. What can employers do to prevent workplace harassment?
No California employer wants to have a workplace tainted by ongoing harassment. And it is certainly the case that no California employer wants the
- financial burden,
- bad publicity or
- impact on employee morale of a harassment lawsuit.
Our California labor and employment attorneys advise our employer clients to take the following five steps to prevent sexual harassment and other forms of harassment in the workplace:
- Create a written policy against harassment;
- Communicate the anti-harassment policy to all employees;
- Train supervisors on the anti-harassment policy;
- Post the California Civil Rights Department (CRDs) poster on harassment in a prominent place; and
- Distribute the CRD brochure on harassment to all employees and supervisors.
Not even the most diligent efforts by employers are a guarantee against harassment occurring. But measures like the ones listed above are helpful even in the worst-case scenario where harassment does occur – since they can help the employer defend itself against charges of negligence in a potential workplace harassment lawsuit.
6. How should an employer respond to a complaint?
Following a workplace harassment allegation, our California workplace harassment attorneys recommend that the employer respond with the following seven measures:
- Listen attentively to the employee’s allegations;
- Take immediate action and reasonable steps pending an investigation (for example, by altering work assignments or schedules so that the complaining employee no longer needs to work with the alleged harasser(s));
- Investigate the complaint thoroughly--preferably with the help of a neutral, knowledgeable third party;
- Draw reasonable, good-faith conclusions based on the results of the investigation;
- Inform both parties of the investigation results, preferably in writing;
- Take appropriate measures to protect the harassed employee and enforce the anti-harassment policy (for example, terminating or disciplining the harasser, and/or changing work schedules or responsibilities so that the harasser no longer supervises or works with the victim); and
- Reevaluate the company’s anti-harassment policy or implementation to see if more could be done to prevent future incidents of workplace harassment.
These steps for responding to a workplace harassment complaint sound simple. But they can be incredibly complicated to implement.
In many situations, it makes sense for employers who are confronting allegations of harassment to consult with an experienced labor and employment lawyer immediately for help with responding to the allegations. Waiting to seek legal advice until the incident turns into a CRD complaint or even a harassment lawsuit may mean that the employer misses valuable opportunities to diffuse the situation.16
7. What is the difference between discrimination and harassment?
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act also prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of the same categories on which harassment is prohibited: race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.17
Many California employers and employees are confused about the difference between a claim for workplace discrimination and a claim for workplace harassment.
To put it simply, the difference is this:
- Harassment occurs when the harassing party engages in behavior that is outside their job description and official duties.
- Discrimination, on the other hand, occurs when the responsible party is engaged in activities that are part of their official duties.18
For example, it is harassment when a supervisor makes disparaging remarks to you, because these kinds of remarks are not part of the supervisor’s job. But it is discrimination when a supervisor favors or disfavors you on prohibited grounds when making work assignments – something that is part of the supervisor’s official duties.
You may experience both discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex or ethnicity. Employers facing complaints or lawsuits for workplace harassment are sometimes sued for discrimination at the same time.
8. Is sexual harassment training mandatory in California workplaces?
California employers with more than five employees must:
- provide two hours of sexual harassment training every two years to managers and supervisors; and
- provide one hour of sexual harassment training every two years to other employees.
Furthermore, this training must include the topics of
- gender identity and expression as well as
- sexual orientation.
9. Other types of harassment in California
There are many types of harassment that do not necessarily involve the workplace. Oftentimes the harasser can face criminal charges.
- Harassing you to the point that you fear for your safety qualifies as stalking.
- Emotionally abusing a person who is 65 or older qualifies as elder abuse.
- Harassing a current or former intimate partner through force – or the threatened use of force – is domestic violence.
- And any harassment that turns physical can be charged as assault or battery.
Victims of domestic violence can apply for a domestic violence restraining order against the abuser. And if you and the harasser are not in a close relationship (such as platonic friends, neighbors or strangers), you can apply for a civil harassment restraining order.
Protective orders can require that the alleged harasser either:
- stay away from you,
- move out of your home (“kick-out order”), and/or
- refrain from certain personal conduct such as contacting you over the phone.
For questions about the law regarding workplace harassment (sexual and non-sexual) under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or to discuss your case confidentially with one of our skilled California labor and employment attorneys, do not hesitate to contact us at Shouse Law Group.
We have local employment law offices – and create attorney-client relationships – in and around Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Jose, Oakland, the San Francisco Bay area, and several nearby cities. We appear in both state law courts and federal law courts. Shouse Law Group also practices criminal defense law, and we fight all types of charges including domestic violence, sexual assault, restraining order violations, and more.
Also see the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- Government Code 12940 GC — Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies and other persons; unlawful employment practice; exceptions [California harassment law].
- California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2020 Annual Report.
- See Mogilefsky v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414–15.
- See Government Code 12940 GC — Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies and other persons; unlawful employment practice; exceptions [California harassment law], endnote 1 above. See also CACI 2524 (factors for whether conduct is severe or pervasive: Were threats or physical touching involved? Was the conduct offensive or humiliating? Was the conduct frequent? Did the conduct unreasonably interfere with job performance? What would a reasonable person think of the conduct?).
- Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1042. (“The other [form of sexual harassment] is sexually harassing conduct that, although not resulting in the loss of or denial of any job benefit, is so “severe or pervasive” as to create a hostile work environment. (Id. at p. 752, 118 S.Ct. 2257.) The terms “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment” are not in Title VII’s text; they first turned up in academic literature, found their way into federal appellate decisions, and after their mention ***644 by the high court in Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, “acquired their own [legal] significance.” (Ellerth, supra, at p. 752, 118 S.Ct. 2257.) 678 Under Title VII, sexual harassment is considered “severe or pervasive” only when it “ ‘ “alter[s] the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create[s] an abusive working environment.” ‘ ” (Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden (2001) 532 U.S. 268, 270, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509.) Taken into account must be the surrounding circumstances, such as the “ ‘ “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” ‘ ” (Id. at pp. 270–271, 121 S.Ct. 1508.) Thus, “ ‘simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes’ ” in employment conditions. (Id. at p. 271, 121 S.Ct. 1508; see also Faragher v. Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775, 787–788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662.)”)
- Government Code 12940 GC — Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies and other persons; unlawful employment practice; exceptions, endnote 1 above.
- Same. See also Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (2001). 94 Cal. App. 4th 14.
- Government Code 12965 GC — Civil action in name of department; group or class complaint; relief; tolling of statute of limitations. Note that many victims choose to rely on the CRD instead of filing their own lawsuit. If the CRD finds evidence of harassment, it may try to resolve the matter. If they cannot, they may force a lawsuit or public hearing in pursuit of damages, including emotional distress. See, for example, Canal Farms To Pay $150,000 To Settle DFEH Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, DFEH (May 22, 2019). See also Ali Zaslav and Jessica Dean, “Senate passes sweeping overhaul of workplace sexual misconduct law“, CNN (February 10, 2022)(“The bill, called Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, bans forced arbitration in cases involving sexual misconduct and allows victims the option of bringing up the dispute in federal, tribal or state court.”).
- Government Code 12960 GC — Procedure for prevention and elimination of unlawful employment practices; application of article; complaints; limitations. (“(d) No complaint may be filed after the expiration of three years from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred . . .”); California Assembly Bill 9 (2019).
- Government Code 12965 GC — Civil action in name of department; group or class complaint; relief; tolling of statute of limitations; see also Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 12, 2021), 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 395.
- Government Code 12940 GC — Wrongful termination over FEHA-protected activities. (“It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California . . . (h) For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.”). See also Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, (Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, (January 22, 2022) Cal. App. LEXIS 49. See also Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal. App. 5th 1.
- See FEHA 12940 (K).
- Government Code 12940 GC — Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies and other persons; unlawful employment practice; exceptions . (“(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”)
- Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014), 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 869-70. (“Harassment is distinguishable from discrimination under the FEHA. “[D]iscrimination refers to bias in the exercise of official actions on behalf of the employer, and harassment refers to bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relations in the workplace.” (Roby v. McKesson, Corp., supra, 47 Cal.4th p. 686) As our high court explained in Reno v. Baird, “Harassment claims are based on a type of conduct that is avoidable and unnecessary to job performance. No supervisory employee needs to use slurs or derogatory drawings, to physically interfere with freedom of movement, to engage in unwanted sexual advances, etc., in order to carry out the legitimate objectives of personnel management. Every supervisory employee can insulate himself or herself from claims of harassment by refraining from such conduct. An individual supervisory employee cannot, however, refrain from engaging in the type of conduct which could later give rise to a discrimination claim. Making personnel decisions is an inherent and unavoidable part of the supervisory function. Without making personnel decisions, a supervisory employee simply cannot perform his or her job duties.””)
- SB 778 (2019), which replaced AB 1825 (2004).