On October 5, 2026, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal held in Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B344642, that an employer was not strictly liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment perpetrated by the plaintiff’s coworker when that coworker was a supervisor of other employees but not a supervisor of the plaintiff. In Doe, the plaintiff and several coworkers traveled to another city for client meetings. After their meetings concluded, the plaintiff and her coworkers had dinner and drinks. The plaintiff claimed that a coworker sexually assaulted her. Although the coworker admitted to a sexual encounter with the plaintiff, he claimed that it was consensual.
The trial court granted the employer summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for sexual harassment, reasoning that the company could not be held strictly liable for harassment because the alleged harasser was not the plaintiff’s supervisor, and the company could not be liable under a negligence standard because it immediately and appropriately responded to the plaintiff’s complaint of sexual harassment. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court misapplied the standard for strict liability and that an employer is strictly liable for harassment perpetrated by a supervisor regardless of whether the supervisor supervises the plaintiff or other employees only.
In reaching its decision, the Court first analyzed the applicable statute, California Government Code section 12940(j), and found the term “supervisor” ambiguous with respect to whether supervisor means an employee who supervises any employees or only an employee who exercises supervisory authority over the alleged harassment victim. The Court found the latter construction more appropriate given FEHA’s purpose of preventing harassment facilitated by the power differential that exists between an employee and his or her supervisor and the absurd results that would follow if “supervisor” was construed broadly to mean any person exercising supervisory authority. The Court also noted that under the plaintiff’s proposed broad construction of supervisor, an employer would be strictly liable for a mid-level manager’s sexual harassment of his or her own boss.
The Court held that even assuming the alleged harasser supervised other employees, because it was undisputed that he did not supervise the plaintiff, strict liability did not apply. The Court noted, however, that the alleged harasser is not required to be the employee’s direct supervisor for the employer to be found strictly liable. An individual outside the employee’s formal reporting structure may still qualify as a supervisor if he or she exercises supervisory authority over the plaintiff.
The Doe decision provides important guidance for California employers. Employers should understand that an employee’s title or supervisory authority over others does not automatically expose an employer to strict liability for harassment. Instead, the analysis focuses on whether the alleged harasser exercised supervisory authority over the plaintiff. Of course, Doe does not eliminate potential employer liability for coworker harassment. In addition to strict liability for harassment perpetrated by an employee who supervises the victim, employers can be liable if they knew or should have known of harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Employers must continue to immediately investigate and respond to harassment complaints.