In Carranza v. Los Angeles, 111 Cal. App. 5th 388 (2025), a female police captain, Lillian Caranza, sued for sexual harassment. A photo of a topless women who resembled her circulated electronically among department personnel. No one ever claimed the picture was of her, but when she found out about it spreading like wildfire through the department, she was mortified, and asked the department to notify employees it was not a picture of her and order personnel to stop sharing the post. The department did not accede to her request because it was concerned by sending out such a notice it would increase curiosity and attempts to find it and further embarrass Carranza. The department did, however, investigate Carranza’s complaint, but the investigation was unable to identify who was responsible for the distribution of the photo.
After the inconclusive investigation, on Christmas Eve, Carranza experienced shortness of breath, palpitations, pain in her left arm, and high blood pressure to such an extent that she went to an emergency room and was hospitalized overnight and released on Christmas day. Since learning about the photo, Carranza felt uncomfortable at work and had difficulty concentrating. She felt ashamed, avoided public settings, and was no longer comfortable speaking to the public and press—tasks that were part of her job. She developed major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
Carranza conceded that no one ever directly joked about the picture with her. In short, no one said anything to her about the picture to make her uncomfortable, rather her anxiety and depression was an outgrowth of the mere knowledge that co-workers were looking at a picture of her doppelganger. Nevertheless, the court held that the captain experienced harassment based on her secondhand knowledge that the photo was widely circulating around the department, and the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The social environment of the workplace became intolerable because the harassment communicated an offensive message to the harassed employee making it more difficult to perform her job.
We Have Come a Long Way
This is in stark contrast to case that occurred at the turn of the century where a police dispatcher sued for sexual harassment in Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, Patricia Brooks experienced a single incident where a coworker touched the skin of her breast under her sweater and bra. The court found this incident to be very offensive, but it did not rise to the level of harassment, especially since the offending employee was terminated. In 2018, the California legislature specifically overturned the “one free grab” rule, and amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make clear that a severe, single, instance of harassment is sufficient to establish a hostile work environment.
Impact of the 2018 Amendment
The question this amendment presents is, how do we determine when something has risen to the level of harassment? In Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc., 106 Cal. App. 5th 663 (2024), the court acknowledged that the severe or pervasive requirement was formerly quite a high bar for plaintiffs to clear. The court went on to analyze a hostile environment and held when the harassing conduct sufficiently offends, humiliates, distresses, or intrudes upon its victim, so as to disrupt the victim’s ability to perform the job as usual, then harassment has been evidenced. The court interpreted this standard to mean that a plaintiff is not required to show a decline in productivity, but rather that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job.
In Carranza, the failure to respond to the complaint of harassment resulted in severe and pervasive harassment. Evidence of Carranza’s altered workplace conditions included her mental state that caused her not to want to be in presence of people at work, starting therapy for the first time because she felt she had no support, canceling a vacation because her blood pressure was too high to fly, being hospitalized overnight on Christmas Eve, suffering when male officers grinned at her in elevators, trouble focusing and concentrating at work, and feeling uncomfortable at public settings, which were part of her duties.
Similarly, in Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal. 5th 611 (2024), use of a racial epithet on one occasion was sufficient to find racial harassment. The court found that evidence that Twanda Bailey was treated for severe anxiety and depression because of workplace stress, cried at psychiatrist’s office on several occasions, and was visibly upset 10 months after a one-time harassing incident could support a finding that harassment interfered with her work performance.
A person can perceive and be affected by harassing conduct by knowledge of that harassment as well as by personal observation. Thomas v. Regents of University of California, 97 Cal. App. 5th 587, 616 n. 10 (2023). Thus, not only can one incident of direct harassment resulting in provable emotional distress now be sufficient to evidence harassment, but the mere knowledge of inappropriate conduct towards the specific employee, even if they were not present to observe it, can lead to a finding of harassment. Case law and statute have come a long way from the one free incident rule.
It should be remembered that while one incident in the workplace may be sufficient to evidence harassment, an incident between co-employees outside the workplace may not be sufficient to establish harassment. In Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc., 2025 WL 2600238 (September 8, 2025), during a bereavement leave, a coworker, visited Steven Kruitbosch’s home, uninvited, with another woman, and indicated she was there to have sex with him. Kruitbosch instructed them to leave him alone and to stop harassing him. They eventually departed Kruitbosch’s property, but in the driveway, left behind a cucumber with a condom attached. Later that same day, the co-employee texted Kruitbosch and invited him to a hotel room to have sex, and stated, “I have dope” and “let me know if you want to f—.” The coworker also sent him multiple sexual images, including her genitals, breasts and buttocks. Incredibly, while the court found the conduct reprehensible, it was not sufficiently work-related to evidence harassment. The court, however, found a hostile work environment because of Bakersfield Recovery Services’ failure to address the complaint made about the conduct to which Kruitbosch was subjected.
Employer Takeaways
What can an employer do to change the odds in its favor? The first step is to develop state-of-the-art policies and procedures to deal with harassment. The second step is to train employees, as well as management, in these policies. The third step is to investigate all claims of harassment no matter how far-fetched. The final step is to be proactive and take measures to end any harassment. How difficult would it have been for the Los Angeles Police department to send out a memo warning employees that a false picture of one of our captains is being circulated among the department, such behaviors must stop, and anyone caught circulating any such pictures via text or any other type of social media on or off the clock will be subject to discipline up to and including termination? Would this have stopped the sharing of the picture? Maybe not. Would this have exonerated the department? Probably yes. Inaction is synonymous with lack of action, which leads to direct liability. How far does an employer’s obligation to halt harassment spread into non-working time? If the actions have impact during working hours, they need to be addressed.
This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo