An employee, who was a supervisor, learned that a photo of a topless woman, which was falsely said to be her, was circulating at her workplace. One of her team members, whom she supervised, told her: 1) he had seen other employees looking at the photo on a cellphone and making lewd comments about her; and 2) he had heard employees were talking about the photo everywhere. The employee asked her employer to notify personnel that the photo was not of her and to order them to stop sharing it.
The employer investigated. The investigation found that an unknown employee, while on or off-duty, circulated a photograph of a nude woman throughout and indicated it was the supervisor. The investigation identified 10 to 13 people who saw the photo and four separate incidents of people viewing or hearing about the photo. The supervisor received a letter from the employer that said appropriate penalties would be imposed, but did not disclose further details, citing confidentiality reasons. However, the supervisor later learned that no employees were disciplined, and the employer did not inform employees that the photo was not of the supervisor. Nor did the employer tell employees to stop circulating the photo.
The supervisor sued her employer, asserting a single cause of action for hostile work environment due to sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). A jury found in her favor, finding the employer failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action despite knowing of the conduct. It awarded $4 million in non-economic damages.
The employer appealed, claiming that there was insubstantial evidence that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the supervisor’s working conditions and create an abusive work environment.
The California Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. The Court determined that substantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that the supervisor endured severe or pervasive harassment that altered the conditions of her workplace, based on her secondhand knowledge that the photo was widely circulating. She understood that the photo circulated for some length of time and to “dozens if not hundreds” of employees.
Plus, despite her repeated requests, the employer did not order employees to stop sharing the photo, advise them that it was not the supervisor, or discipline anyone who distributed the photo. The fact that the employer allowed the distribution to continue unchecked supported not only her claims that her employer’s response to the harassment was not sufficient, but also demonstrated the pervasiveness and severity of the harassment itself.
Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.5th 388 (2025).
Note: The Court of Appeal held that even secondhand knowledge of severe or pervasive harassment can support a hostile work environment claim if the conduct is widespread and the employer fails to act. Nonprofit employers must take prompt and effective action to stop harassment, regardless of whether the targeted employee personally witnesses the misconduct.