Hostile Work Environment Harassment: What California Employers Should Know and Consider

Introduction

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it unlawful for any employer to permit harassment that creates a hostile or abusive work environment for employees. This isn’t just about unwanted jokes or awkward moments: when unwelcome conduct based on race, sex, gender, disability, age, or other protected traits becomes severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, it creates serious legal exposure. Gov. Code § 12940(j); Ortiz v. Dameron Hosp. Ass'n, 37 Cal. App. 5th 568, 581 (2019).

What “Hostile Work Environment” Really Means

A hostile work environment means an employee is subjected to offensive, intimidating, or abusive behavior that targets a protected characteristic—such as race, gender identity, or disability—and that conduct makes the workplace feel genuinely difficult or threatening. Courts look for conduct that is either repeated (pervasive) or so egregious (severe) that a reasonable person would find the environment hostile, and the victim actually feels mistreated. Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal. 4th 264, 284 (2006); Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 121, 129–30 (1999).

Common examples intentionally prohibited by law:

• Repeated offensive remarks, slurs, or jokes about a protected trait

• Unwanted touching or sexual advances

• Threats, bullying, or intimidation

• Systematic exclusion from meetings, training, or advancement opportunities

• Displaying offensive images or engaging in harassment by email or chat

Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., Inc., 22 Cal. App. 4th 397, 409 (1994).

What the Law Requires

Not every bad workplace qualifies. The law is specific:

• The conduct must be based on a protected trait (race, gender, age, disability, etc.)

• The behavior must be unwelcome and severe or pervasive

• Both a reasonable person and the employee must find it hostile

• Supervisor harassment makes the employer strictly liable; otherwise, liability depends on whether management failed to fix the problem

Gov. Code § 12940(j); State Dep't of Health Servs. v. Super. Ct., 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 1042 (2003).

Isolated incidents, mild disputes, or fair performance reviews—when not connected to a protected trait—do not meet the legal threshold. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 (1993).

How Courts Apply These Rules

California courts examine the details: Was there a clear pattern? Did management respond quickly? The legal standard is demanding but fair—legitimate discipline or personality conflicts aren’t grounds for liability unless the real cause is unlawful bias. The best defense is always transparency and consistency. Rehmani v. Super. Ct., 204 Cal. App. 4th 945, 952 (2012).

Employer Guidance: Staying Compliant and Safe

• Enact strong anti-harassment policies: Share and enforce clear zero-tolerance rules for all forms of harassment.

• Train staff and supervisors regularly: Make sure everyone knows the legal definitions, how to report, and the company’s accountability procedures.

• Investigate and document: Take all complaints seriously, investigate promptly, and keep detailed records of every step.

• Respond effectively: Implement appropriate discipline and corrective action regardless of rank; protect complainants from retaliation.

Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1); State Dep't of Health Servs., 31 Cal. 4th at 1042.

The Risk of Ignoring Problems

Employers who ignore complaints or delay investigations risk substantial liability, regulatory fines, jury awards, and reputational harm. Fast action and fair treatment can often resolve issues before they escalate—and sometimes prevent lawsuits entirely. Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 286 (2009).

The Bottom Line

California law sets a clear expectation: employers must create and maintain workplaces free from severe or pervasive harassment based on protected characteristics. The costs of noncompliance—legal, cultural, and financial—are simply too high to ignore.

Citations

Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (j); Ortiz v. Dameron Hosp. Ass'n, 37 Cal. App. 5th 568, 581 (2019); Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal. 4th 264, 284 (2006); Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 121, 129–30 (1999); Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., Inc., 22 Cal. App. 4th 397, 409 (1994); State Dep't of Health Servs. v. Super. Ct., 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 1042 (2003); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 25 (1993); Rehmani v. Super. Ct., 204 Cal. App. 4th 945, 952 (2012); Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 286 (2009)