California law treats harassment differently from ordinary workplace conflict. The distinction matters because it determines whether an employer faces statutory liability or a personnel problem. An investigation that does not understand the difference will produce findings that do not answer the question a court, the Civil Rights Department, or opposing counsel will actually ask.
This guide addresses harassment investigations specifically, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 and following. It is written for employers, in house counsel, and human resources professionals who must decide how to respond when a harassment complaint arrives.
FEHA prohibits harassment because of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, creed, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age 40 and over, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military and veteran status, and reproductive health decision making.
This is the threshold question, and it is the one most often skipped. Conduct that is rude, humiliating, or punitive is not harassment under FEHA unless the evidence connects it to a protected characteristic. The connection may be explicit, as with a slur, or circumstantial, as where a supervisor directs the same conduct only at employees who share a characteristic and not at others.
An investigation that returns a finding of unprofessional conduct without addressing the protected characteristic question has not completed its work. The employer is left holding a finding it cannot act on with confidence.
California does not prohibit workplace bullying as such. A supervisor who is abusive to everyone equally may be violating company policy, damaging retention, and creating exposure under other theories, but is not necessarily violating FEHA. Employers should understand this boundary in both directions. A finding that conduct falls outside FEHA is not a finding that the conduct was acceptable, and the report should say so plainly rather than leaving the employer to infer it.
To be actionable as a hostile work environment, harassment must be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Government Code section 12923, added by Senate Bill 1300 and effective January 1, 2019, changed how that standard is applied in California. Four points from that section bear directly on investigative work:
The practical consequence for an investigator is that a single serious incident cannot be dismissed as isolated without analysis, and an accumulation of comments cannot be dismissed as stray. Both require a documented severity and pervasiveness analysis rather than a conclusion.
Sexual harassment claims fall into two categories, and they call for different evidence. Quid pro quo harassment involves conditioning a term of employment on submission to sexual conduct. The investigation turns on the link between the demand and the employment action, which means the personnel record, the timing, and the decision making chain matter as much as the interviews.
Hostile work environment harassment involves conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive. Here the investigation turns on frequency, severity, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating rather than a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with work performance. A report that does not address each of those dimensions has not applied the standard.
Under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), an employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor. Knowledge is not an element. This is why the threshold determination of whether the respondent is a supervisor within the meaning of FEHA is not a formality. The statutory definition turns on authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, rather than on job title.
For harassment by a coworker, the employer is liable if it knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The same standard extends to harassment of applicants, unpaid interns, volunteers, and persons providing services under contract. The phrase should have known is where many investigations find the real exposure, because it reaches complaints that were mentioned to a manager and never escalated.
Individual harassers are personally liable under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(3), whether or not the employer is liable.
Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k), imposes an independent obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. An employer can fail this duty even where the underlying harassment claim does not succeed. Investigations should therefore capture what the employer knew, when it knew it, and what it did, not only what the respondent did.
Delay is the most common defect. Document the date the complaint was received, the date the investigation was assigned, and the reason for any gap. Where the allegations involve a direct reporting relationship, consider interim measures such as a temporary reporting change. Interim measures should not disadvantage the complainant, since moving the complainant rather than the respondent can itself support a retaliation claim.
Reduce the complaint to discrete, numbered allegations before interviewing anyone. Each allegation should identify the respondent, the conduct, the approximate date, and the protected characteristic implicated. Allegations that surface during the investigation are added to the list rather than absorbed silently into the analysis.
Harassment frequently occurs without observers. An investigation that declines to reach a finding because the accounts conflict has not done its job. Credibility should be assessed against stated factors: inherent plausibility, demeanor, motive to fabricate, corroboration, past record, and consistency across accounts. Each factor should be applied to the specific evidence and documented, so that the reasoning is visible to a reviewer who was not present.
Contemporaneous communications, including text messages, calendar entries, and messages to friends or family, often carry more weight than recollection offered months later. Evidence that the respondent engaged in similar conduct toward others may bear on intent, motive, and pattern. Preserve it and describe it accurately. Whether it is ultimately admissible is a question for counsel, not for the investigator.
Retaliation is a separate violation and frequently the stronger claim. Advise participants of the prohibition, document that advisement, and check back with the complainant during and after the investigation. A schedule change or a shift in assignments following a complaint should be documented and explained at the time, not reconstructed during litigation.
A harassment investigation report should state the allegations as numbered items, identify the evidence considered for each, set out the credibility analysis, and reach a finding on each allegation under a stated standard of proof. It should distinguish between what was established, what was not established, and what could not be determined. Vague conclusions such as concerns were substantiated do not give the employer a basis for action and do not withstand review.
Confidentiality should be maintained to the extent consistent with a thorough investigation. Blanket instructions barring participants from discussing the matter at all carry their own risk, and the scope of any confidentiality direction should be reviewed with counsel.
An employee generally has three years from the date of the alleged unlawful practice to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. That window was extended from one year by Assembly Bill 9, effective January 1, 2020. Internal complaint deadlines set by employer policy do not shorten the statutory period.
Once an employer is on notice of potential harassment, the obligation to respond attaches regardless of how the information arrived. An anonymous report may limit what can be investigated, but it does not excuse inaction. Document what was done with the information and why.
Employers with five or more employees must provide two hours of harassment prevention training to supervisory employees and one hour to nonsupervisory employees, repeated every two years. The requirement appears at Government Code section 12950.1. Training records are frequently requested in litigation as evidence bearing on the duty to prevent.
Often, yes. An external investigator becomes advisable where the respondent is a senior executive, where human resources is itself implicated, where litigation is anticipated, or where the matter involves multiple respondents or complainants. The question is not competence but whether the finding will be seen as neutral by a reviewer who is looking for reasons to doubt it.
Allen Morris Investigations is a licensed California investigation firm conducting neutral, third party workplace investigations for employers, employment counsel, public agencies, and educational institutions throughout California and Arizona. Engagements are scoped in writing, conducted under license, and delivered as a written report that states the allegations, the evidence, the credibility analysis, and a finding on each allegation.
Nothing in this article is legal advice. Statutory citations are provided so that counsel can verify them against the current text. Decisions about liability, discipline, and litigation strategy rest with the employer and its attorneys.
Related resources: See our harassment and discrimination investigation services, the California employer guide to workplace investigations, and what California courts require of a workplace investigation.
Share this article
Guidance on California workplace investigations, FEHA compliance, retaliation claims, and Title IX obligations, written for HR leaders and employment counsel.
Occasional updates only. Unsubscribe at any time. Your address is never shared.
Thank you. You are subscribed to News & Updates.
