Workplace Investigations Involving Nonemployee (Vendor) Respondents

A Legal Framework for California and Arizona Investigators

Overview

When the person accused of misconduct in a workplace complaint is a vendor, contractor, or other third party rather than an employee, the investigative and legal analysis changes substantially. The employer cannot discipline the vendor through its own human resources or disciplinary process, and the strict liability rules that apply to supervisor misconduct do not apply. In both California and Arizona, liability depends on what the employer knew, or should have known, and whether it took immediate and appropriate corrective action once it was on notice. This negligence framework is the central legal question investigators must document and analyze when the respondent is a vendor.

The Legal Standard: Negligence, Not Strict Liability

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12940(j)(1), an employer may be responsible for harassment by nonemployees against employees, applicants, unpaid interns, volunteers, or persons providing services under contract. Liability arises when the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. This differs sharply from harassment by a supervisor, where the employer is strictly liable regardless of fault. For vendor and other third party harassment, the standard follows the coworker harassment model: negligence, not automatic liability.

Two elements drive the analysis:

1. Knowledge. Actual notice, such as a report to a supervisor or human resources, or constructive notice, meaning conduct open and repeated enough that a reasonably attentive employer would have discovered it.
2. Response. Whether the corrective action was immediate and appropriate, given the degree of control the employer had over the vendor.

The Arizona framework is closely aligned. The Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA), A.R.S. section 41-1461 et seq., is generally interpreted consistently with Title VII. Arizona employers may be liable for third party sexual harassment, including harassment by vendors, delivery personnel, or consultants, under the same “knew or should have known and failed to act promptly” standard. The ACRA definition of employer for sexual harassment claims reaches employers with one or more employees. That threshold is broader than the 15 employee minimum under Title VII and broader than the general ACRA discrimination threshold. As a result, this exposure reaches essentially every Arizona employer.

The Control Factor

Courts in both states treat the employer’s degree of control over the vendor and its personnel as a key factor in deciding whether the corrective action was reasonable. Because an employer typically lacks disciplinary authority over a vendor’s employees, courts measure the response against what the employer could actually do. Available measures include barring the individual from the premises, requesting substitution of personnel, or suspending or terminating the vendor contract. For the investigator, this is the practical center of the analysis: the corrective action options for a vendor respondent are contractual and access based, not employment based.

Factor	Employee Respondent	Vendor or Nonemployee Respondent
Liability standard	Strict liability if supervisor; negligence if coworker	Negligence (knew or should have known and failed to act)
Employer’s available remedy	Discipline, reassignment, termination of employment	Bar from premises, personnel substitution, contract suspension or termination
Direct claim against harasser	Personal liability possible under FEHA, Gov. Code section 12940(j)(3)	Generally limited under FEHA and ACRA; Civil Code section 51.9 and tort claims, such as battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress, may apply
Governing statute	Gov. Code section 12940(j); A.R.S. section 41-1463	Gov. Code section 12940(j)(1); ACRA, with Title VII authority as persuasive
California filing deadline	Three years to the Civil Rights Department	Three years to the Civil Rights Department

Key California Case Law

M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 693 is the leading California appellate decision on nonemployee harassment. A hotel housekeeper was sexually assaulted by a trespasser after the employer knew or should have known that the individual had been on the premises for roughly an hour and had already propositioned another housekeeper. The Court of Appeal held that these facts stated viable FEHA claims for nonemployee sexual harassment and failure to prevent harassment. The court also held that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar those FEHA claims. The decision supports the principle that once an employer has notice that a nonemployee poses a risk, it cannot avoid liability simply because the eventual victim was not the person previously targeted.

Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group (2023) 15 Cal.5th 519 extended FEHA exposure in a different direction. The California Supreme Court held that a business entity acting as an employer’s agent, with five or more employees, may be directly liable as an employer under FEHA when it carries out FEHA regulated activity on the employer’s behalf. The case involved a preemployment medical screening provider. For investigators, this means a vendor providing employment related services, such as a staffing agency, human resources vendor, or screening company, may be an independently liable party, not only a source of third party conduct.

Civil Code section 51.9 supplements FEHA by addressing sexual harassment in business, service, or professional relationships, even where no employment relationship exists. It may reach independent contractors, consultants, and other professional service relationships.

Key Federal Case Law (Persuasive in California and Arizona)

Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 1998) is frequently cited nationally, including in Ninth Circuit briefing, for employer liability based on customer harassment. A server was sexually harassed by two customers. After she reported the conduct, her manager directed her to continue serving them, and one customer then physically assaulted her. The Tenth Circuit affirmed liability against the franchisee employer, though not against the franchisor. The court held that an employer may be liable for harassment by a nonemployee when it ratifies or acquiesces in the conduct by failing to take immediate corrective action after it knew or should have known of it. The court also concluded that the conduct was sufficiently severe to support liability, which illustrates that severity, and not only repetition, can establish a hostile work environment.

Fried v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 18 F.4th 643 (9th Cir. 2021) reaffirmed that an employer’s failure to respond to a third party’s unwelcome conduct toward an employee can support a hostile work environment claim. The Ninth Circuit relied on its earlier casino patron decision, Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enterprises, and on Lockard. Ninth Circuit authority is binding in federal courts in California and Arizona and is persuasive in state courts in both states.

Practical Investigative Implications for Vendor Respondent Cases

Because a vendor respondent sits outside the employer’s disciplinary authority, the investigation must be structured differently at several points.

1. Scope and jurisdiction. Confirm whether the conduct occurred within the employer’s workplace for FEHA or ACRA purposes. The relevant question is where and in what context the conduct occurred, not the respondent’s employment classification.
2. Notice documentation. Because liability turns on actual or constructive knowledge, reconstruct precisely what the employer knew and when. Include the dates of complaints, prior incidents involving the same vendor personnel, and any pattern suggesting constructive notice.
3. Control assessment. Document the employer’s contractual leverage over the vendor, including termination rights, personnel substitution clauses, and authority to revoke access or badges. Courts weigh the degree of control when assessing whether the response was reasonable.
4. Respondent interview limitations. A vendor representative generally cannot be compelled to participate in an internal interview unless the contract contains a cooperation clause. Document any refusal, and rely more heavily on documentary evidence, witness accounts, and access logs.
5. Corrective action options. Map findings to the remedies actually available, such as barring the individual from the premises, requesting a personnel substitution, suspending work under the contract, or terminating the vendor relationship.
6. Parallel liability of the vendor entity. Under Raines, assess whether the vendor itself, as distinct from its individual representative, may bear independent liability if it performs FEHA regulated functions on the employer’s behalf. Consider whether an analogous analysis applies under ACRA.

Filing Deadlines and Procedural Notes

In California, an employee has three years from the most recent harassing act to file an administrative complaint with the Civil Rights Department, and one year after a right to sue notice issues to file a civil action. ACRA claims proceed through the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. ACRA remedies are generally limited to back pay, front pay, injunctive relief, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees, without the compensatory or punitive damages available under FEHA. Investigators preparing findings in vendor respondent matters in either state may note this remedy difference for the client, since it can affect how the organization evaluates settlement or the urgency of corrective action once vendor misconduct is substantiated.

This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. Consult qualified employment counsel regarding any specific matter.

---

If you like this article, do me a favor and share it with a colleague or repost it to your network. Together we’re building a community of investigators committed to elevating workplace culture.

About Kathie Allen

Kathie Allen is a licensed California Private Investigator (PI 27033) and holds Arizona PI Agency License No. 1829951. She has over 20 years of experience conducting workplace investigations throughout Orange County and California. An Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI)–trained investigator and Certified Title IX Investigator, she specializes in harassment, discrimination, employee misconduct, and Title IX compliance investigations for businesses, schools, and organizations.

Contact Allen Morris Investigations:
Phone: 949-573-4624
Email: Kathie@allenmorrispi.com
Schedule a consultation or learn more at Allen Morris Investigations.