Wear Trial Law represents employees subjected to harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of their employment. California law is more favorable here than most employees are told — a single incident may be sufficient, and these cases are expressly recognized as rarely appropriate for dismissal before trial.
What the claim actually requires
A hostile work environment claim requires harassment based on a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
Two points employees consistently get wrong:
“Severe or pervasive” is a disjunctive test. Conduct can qualify because it was serious enough on one occasion, or because it was persistent over time. It does not have to be both.
A bad boss is not automatically a legal claim. Harassment must connect to a protected characteristic. A supervisor who is hostile to everyone equally may be creating a miserable workplace without creating a claim — though where the hostility is selectively directed, that selectivity is itself evidence.
California expressly changed the standards
California law now provides that:
- A single incident of harassing conduct may be sufficient to create a triable issue
- Harassment cases are rarely appropriate for resolution on summary judgment
- The “stray remarks” doctrine is rejected — a discriminatory remark may be relevant evidence even if not made directly in the decision-making process
- The legal standard for harassment does not vary by the type of workplace
Together these overturned a body of case law that employers had used to dispose of harassment claims before a jury ever heard them. Employees who were told years ago that their situation “wasn’t enough” may have been evaluated under superseded standards.
Who can be liable
The employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor. For harassment by a coworker or a non-employee — a client, a vendor, a customer — the employer is liable where it knew or should have known and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
Individual harassers can be held personally liable for harassment under California law, which is not true of discrimination claims.
When the employer’s response is the problem
Employees frequently report harassment and find that the response made things worse: the complaint was met with a perfunctory investigation, the complainant was moved rather than the harasser, or scrutiny of the complainant’s own performance began immediately.
Each of those is evidence. An inadequate response is part of the harassment claim, and adverse treatment following a complaint is separately actionable as retaliation. See Workplace Retaliation & Whistleblower Claims.
What to preserve
A dated log of incidents — what happened, who was present, what was said. Contemporaneous notes carry weight that later recollection does not. Messages and emails. Your complaint and the response. Names of others who witnessed or experienced the same conduct. Performance records before and after you complained.
Free and confidential. Call 415-233-9688. Please share only general details until a conflict check is complete.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ
California law expressly provides that a single incident may be enough.
That may not be a legal claim unless it connects to a protected characteristic.
An inadequate investigation is often evidence supporting the claim.
For harassment claims, individual liability is available under California law.
Many claims are brought by current employees, and retaliation is separately unlawful.
Request a Free, Confidential Consultation
You Are Not Alone. Speak directly with Michael Wear in a free, confidential consultation.
Talk to Us