Bakersfield Recovery Service, Inc. (BRS) provides substance abuse treatment. Steven Kruitbosch was an assistant corporate compliance officer. Lisa Sanders was Kruitbosch’s coworker, though the two did not work together or in the same location often.
Like many BRS employees, Kruitbosch was in recovery from substance abuse, and many employees, including Sanders, knew that Kruitbosch was sober. After Kruitbosch’s long term partner passed away, he took leave under the California Family Rights Act.
In the week leading up to Kruitbosch’s return, Sanders began sending Kruitbosch multiple unsolicited nude pictures and propositioning him. Kruitbosch firmly rejected these advances. Sanders went to Kruitbosch’s home uninvited, and again propositioned him. Kruitbosch told her to leave. Sanders eventually departed Kruitbosch’s property, but left behind a cucumber with a condom attached in his driveway. Sanders texted Kruitbosch and invited him to a hotel room to have sex and drugs. She sent him multiple sexually explicit images.
Upon returning to work, Kruitbosch immediately complained about Sanders’s conduct to acting program director Stephanie Carroll and HR representative Kimberly Giles. Carroll said there was not much she could do. Giles posted a video to social media depicting dogs whining that made a veiled reference to Kruitbosch’s complaint.
Kruitbosch’s employment became unbearable as he went to great lengths to avoid Sanders. He was fearful that he would be forced to see Sanders. He was overcome with anger and humiliation, knowing Sanders was free to continue harassing him. Kruitbosch resigned because he felt that continuing to work at BRS would be detrimental to his mental health, grief recovery process, and sobriety.
After resigning, Kruitbosch filed a complaint against BRS and Sanders under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He included a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment. The trial court granted BRS’s demurrer, finding that Sanders’s conduct was not attributable to BRS on the basis of their co-working relationship alone. The court found that although Kruitbosch was unhappy with BRS’s response, the situation was not pervasive, and BRS took no adverse action. Kruitbosch appealed.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling sustaining BRS’s demurrer as to Kruitbosch’s claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The Court held that while Sanders’s conduct was not sufficiently work-related to be imputed to the BRS, but, BRS’s response to the Kruitbosch’s complaint—specifically, Carroll and Giles’s failure to act and Giles’s comment and social media post mocking him—could support a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment. Giles’s comment, in conjunction with BRS’s ratification of Sanders’s conduct through inaction, materially altered his working conditions. There was no investigation of Kruitbosch’s complaint, no admonition to Sanders to cease her conduct, and BRS took no steps to shield Kruitbosch from having to interact with Sanders.
Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc., 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 569 (Sep. 8, 2025.)