Sexual Harassment

California’s FEHA covers sexual harassment claims against employers of any size — even single-employee operations are covered under Cal. Gov. Code §12940(j)(4)(A). California applies strict liability for supervisor harassment under FEHA, without the Faragher/Ellerth defense to liability that is available under federal Title VII (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026). Strict liability attaches at the liability stage; the avoidable consequences doctrine can still reduce damages where the employer took reasonable preventive and corrective measures and the employee unreasonably failed to use them.

Michael Trust founded Michael Trust Law, APC after more than 35 years in HR leadership across entertainment, healthcare, higher education, finance, banking, solar energy, and other industries, including managing approximately 35,000 disability and leave-of-absence cases. He holds the SPHR, PHRca, and SHRM-SCP credentials. The PHRca is a California-specific HR credential focused on California employment law and HR practice. According to HRCI’s published pass-rate statistics at https://www.hrci.org/pass-rates, the PHRca has the lowest pass rate of all HRCI credentials — 47% as of December 31, 2025, compared with 71–84% for HRCI’s other certifications — and only 293 candidates worldwide tested for it in 2025. That HR-systems background helps identify HR process issues early, which can shape legal analysis on both sides. This HR background often proves relevant to harassment analysis, where the strength of the complaint procedure and investigation process often determines both liability and damages under California’s avoidable consequences doctrine.

Employee Harassment

Michael Trust Law, APC represents employees subjected to workplace harassment. California law prohibits hostile work environments created by supervisors, coworkers, or third parties. We fight to hold employers accountable and protect your dignity and rights.

A tense office moment showing conflict between coworkers. Documenting emotions and office dynamics.

A common sexual harassment fact pattern under FEHA involves a supervisor’s unwelcome advances or persistent sexualized comments toward a subordinate, often with implicit or explicit job consequences. California’s strict liability standard for supervisor harassment under State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026 means the employer faces liability without the Faragher/Ellerth defense, though the avoidable consequences doctrine can reduce damages where the employer took reasonable preventive and corrective measures, the employee unreasonably failed to use them, and reasonable use would have prevented at least some of the harm.

California Sexual Harassment — Employee Rights

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) covers sexual harassment claims against employers of any size — even single-employee operations are covered (Cal. Gov. Code §12940(j)(4)(A)). FEHA recognizes both “quid pro quo” harassment (where job benefits are conditioned on sexual conduct) and “hostile work environment” harassment (where sex-based conduct is severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions).

How Harassment Is Analyzed

Not every uncomfortable workplace exchange is legally actionable harassment. The conduct must be based on sex (or another protected characteristic), and it must be either severe or pervasive — a single severe act can suffice, or a pattern of less-severe conduct that creates an abusive working environment. Employer liability under FEHA differs from federal Title VII: California holds employers strictly liable for supervisor harassment without a Faragher/Ellerth defense (compare Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742, and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775, with State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026), and applies a negligence standard for co-worker harassment. Whether a particular pattern meets the legal threshold is fact-specific. Even where strict liability attaches, however, California recognizes the avoidable consequences doctrine: an employer may reduce damages by showing that it took reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment, that the employee unreasonably failed to use the corrective measures, and that reasonable use would have prevented at least some of the harm. (partially published).A coworker’s harassment outside the workplace and outside working hours is not automatically charged to the employer, but the employer’s response to a complaint about it can itself create a hostile work environment, as the Court of Appeal held in Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (partially published; only the published portion is cited)

When to Contact Us

Harassment cases are highly fact-sensitive and often involve preservation of communications and witness recollection. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a 30-minute conversation.

Initial contact does not create an attorney-client relationship — see Disclaimers.

Cal. Gov. Code §12940(j)(1), (j)(4)(A) (FEHA harassment); State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026; Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775; Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (partially published; only the published portion is cited)

Explore Related Employee Services

Browse all California employment law topics

Frequently Asked Questions

California holds employers strictly liable for supervisor harassment under FEHA without the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense available under federal Title VII (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026; compare Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742 and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775). Prompt corrective action can support an avoidable-consequences defense to reduce damages but does not eliminate liability.

Possibly, under Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (partially published; only the published portion is cited). In that case, the coworker’s off-duty conduct was not charged to the employer, but the employer’s dismissive and mocking response to the complaint about it could itself support a hostile work environment claim under FEHA.

Delay can affect the avoidable-consequences calculation but typically does not eliminate the claim. The avoidable-consequences doctrine requires the employer to show that it took reasonable preventive and corrective measures, that the employee unreasonably failed to use them, and that reasonable use would have prevented at least some of the harm. Each prong is fact-specific. Document why you did not report — fear, retaliation history, lack of a meaningful complaint channel — before the conversation.

Coworker harassment is also actionable under FEHA, but the liability standard differs: the employer is liable when it knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take prompt corrective action. Notice to the employer — formally or informally — and the response are typically central to the analysis.

Michael Trust Law, APC stands with employees facing harassment and hostile environments. We fight to restore dignity, recover damages, and hold employers accountable under California law.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC Today