Sexual Harassment

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.

Employer Sexual Harassment Prevention

Michael Trust Law, APC helps California employers implement compliant sexual harassment prevention policies, training programs, and defense strategies for FEHA harassment claims.

Sexual Harassment

A typical sexual harassment defense scenario begins when an employer receives a complaint of supervisor misconduct toward a subordinate. California’s strict liability rule under State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026 means the focus often shifts from whether liability attaches to how damages can be reduced through the avoidable consequences doctrine — which under McGinnis requires the employer to show that it took reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment, the employee unreasonably failed to use those measures, and reasonable use would have prevented at least some of the harm. Prevention measures, complaint procedures, and investigation processes are the documentary record on which that defense is built.

California’s SB 1343 (Cal. Gov. Code §12950.1) requires sexual harassment prevention training for employers with 5+ employees, and FEHA imposes strict liability on employers for supervisor harassment under State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (McGinnis) — with no Faragher/Ellerth defense to liability available, though the avoidable consequences doctrine can reduce damages where the employer took reasonable preventive and corrective measures and the employee unreasonably failed to use them.

This HR background often proves relevant to harassment prevention and defense, where the quality of the policy, training, complaint procedure, and investigation process directly affects damages even where liability under McGinnis attaches.

California Sexual Harassment Prevention and Defense — Employer Counsel

California applies a highly prescriptive sexual harassment prevention regime. Under SB 1343, codified at Cal. Gov. Code §12950.1, employers with 5 or more employees must provide one hour of training to non-supervisory employees and two hours to supervisors every two years, with specific content requirements set by the Civil Rights Department (formerly DFEH).

What Effective Prevention Looks Like

Compliance with the training mandate is a baseline, not a defense to all claims. Effective harassment prevention requires a documented policy with multiple reporting channels, prompt and impartial investigation procedures, manager training that goes beyond the SB 1343 minimum, consistent discipline following substantiated findings, and protection against retaliation for complainants and witnesses. Where harassment is alleged, the employer’s pre-complaint posture often determines whether the case is defensible. Whether a particular case is defensible depends on the documentary record and investigation discipline. Under federal Title VII (Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775). California does, however, recognize the avoidable consequences doctrine, which can reduce damages where the employer maintained reasonable preventive measures and the employee failed to use them. This is the doctrinal reason why investment in complaint procedures, training, and prompt investigation pays out financially even on cases where liability attaches. The scope of employer exposure has also expanded beyond on-premises conduct: under Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (partially published), an employer’s response to a complaint about off-duty conduct by a coworker can itself create FEHA hostile work environment liability, even where the underlying conduct occurred outside work, although the court held that the employee there had not alleged a constructive discharge.

When to Contact Us

Prevention audits, policy review, and investigation counsel are most useful before a complaint is filed. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC.

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

Cal. Gov. Code §12940(j) (FEHA harassment and supervisor strict liability); Cal. Gov. Code §12950.1 (SB 1343 training requirements); 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

Explore Related Employer Services

Browse all California employment law topics

Frequently Asked Questions

Strict liability under State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026 attaches at the liability stage, but the avoidable consequences doctrine can reduce damages where the employer maintained reasonable preventive measures, the employee unreasonably failed to use them, and reasonable use would have prevented some of the harm. Prevention investment pays out financially even on cases where liability attaches.

Cal. Gov. Code §12950.1 (SB 1343) requires California employers with five or more employees to provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees — two hours for supervisors and one hour for non-supervisors — every two years, with new hires trained within six months. Documentation of completion is the compliance posture.

Take it seriously. Under Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200 (partially published), an employer’s response to an off-duty harassment complaint can itself create FEHA hostile work environment liability, although the court held that the employee there had not alleged a constructive discharge. The response — separate from the underlying conduct — is now in the legal frame. Dismissive or mocking responses are particularly risky.

Receipt of the complaint (date, intake notes), the investigation steps taken, witness interviews, evidence reviewed, the conclusion, the corrective action (if any), and the communication back to the complainant — all in writing, contemporaneously. The reasonableness of the process is later assessed on the documentary record, not on later reconstruction.

Michael Trust Law, APC helps California employers implement compliant sexual harassment prevention policies, training programs, and defense strategies for FEHA harassment claims.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC Today