Understanding Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Claims Under FEHA (and Title VII)

Workplace conflict is not uncommon, but California law draws a clear line between ordinary workplace friction and unlawful harassment. Employees frequently ask whether offensive comments, unfair treatment, or ongoing tension at work rise to the level of a legally actionable hostile work environment. Employers, meanwhile, must understand when conduct triggers legal duties to investigate and correct behavior before it leads to liability.

This post explains how harassment and hostile work environment claims work under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and how those standards compare to federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For help with harassment and hostile environment claims in the Bay Area, contact Richard Koss, Attorney at Law, to speak with an experienced San Francisco employment lawyer.

What Is a Hostile Work Environment Under FEHA?

Under FEHA, a hostile work environment exists when an employee is subjected to unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic, and that conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. FEHA is broadly construed and is generally more protective of employees than federal law.

Protected characteristics under FEHA include, among others, race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability, medical condition, age (40 and over), religion, marital status, and military or veteran status. Harassment tied to any of these characteristics can potentially support a hostile work environment claim.

Importantly, FEHA focuses on the impact of the conduct on the employee, not whether the harasser intended harm. Conduct that a supervisor or coworker dismisses as “joking” or “just how things are” may still be unlawful if it objectively and subjectively creates a hostile atmosphere.

Harassment Versus Ordinary Workplace Rudeness

Not every unpleasant or unprofessional interaction is illegal harassment. California courts are clear that FEHA is not a “general civility code.” Personality conflicts, occasional rude remarks, unfair criticism, or a difficult boss do not automatically create a hostile work environment.

The key distinction is whether the conduct is tied to a protected characteristic and whether it crosses the legal threshold of severity or pervasiveness. Examples of behavior that may contribute to a hostile work environment include repeated derogatory comments about an employee’s race or gender, sexually explicit jokes or messages, unwanted physical contact, slurs, or persistent mocking related to a disability or age.

Isolated incidents usually are not enough unless they are extremely serious, such as a physical assault or an egregious racial or sexual slur by a supervisor. More often, hostile work environment claims involve a pattern of conduct that builds over time and interferes with an employee’s ability to do their job.

“Severe or Pervasive” Conduct Explained

Courts evaluate hostile work environment claims by looking at the totality of the circumstances. There is no bright-line rule. Factors include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance.

Under FEHA, conduct does not need to be both severe and pervasive. Either can be sufficient. A single incident may qualify if it is severe enough, while less extreme conduct may qualify if it occurs repeatedly over time. California courts often emphasize that FEHA should be interpreted liberally to accomplish its remedial purpose, which can make it easier for employees to survive early dismissal of claims compared to federal cases.

How FEHA Differs From Title VII

Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment based on protected characteristics, but there are important differences between FEHA and federal law.

One major distinction is coverage. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees, and harassment claims can be brought against employers of any size if the harassment is committed by an employee. Title VII generally applies only to employers with 15 or more employees.

FEHA is also broader in the range of protected categories and in its interpretation of what constitutes actionable harassment. California courts are often more receptive to claims involving ongoing, subtle, or non-overtly threatening conduct, whereas federal courts applying Title VII may impose a higher bar.

Additionally, FEHA allows for individual liability against harassers. Supervisors and coworkers can be personally liable for harassment under FEHA, even if the employer is also named in the lawsuit. Under Title VII, individual employees are generally not personally liable; under the federal law, liability rests with the employer.

Who Can Be Held Responsible for Harassment

Employer liability depends in part on who engaged in the harassment. If the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is typically strictly liable for the harassment, meaning the employer may be responsible even if it was unaware of the conduct. This reflects California’s strong policy of holding employers accountable for the actions of those with authority over others.

If the harasser is a coworker or a non-employee, such as a customer or contractor, the employer may still be liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

Employer Duties to Prevent and Address Harassment

California law imposes affirmative duties on employers to prevent harassment before it occurs. Employers must take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment, including maintaining clear written policies, providing complaint procedures, and conducting mandatory harassment prevention training for supervisors and, in many cases, nonsupervisory employees.

When an employer receives a complaint or otherwise becomes aware of potential harassment, it must act promptly. This includes conducting a fair and thorough investigation and taking appropriate remedial action if misconduct is found. Ignoring complaints, minimizing concerns, or retaliating against the reporting employee can significantly increase legal exposure.

Retaliation and Worker Protections

Both FEHA and Title VII strictly prohibit retaliation. An employee does not need to prove that harassment actually occurred to be protected from retaliation. It is enough that the employee had a reasonable belief that the conduct was unlawful and reported it or participated in an investigation.

Retaliation claims often arise alongside hostile work environment claims and can include termination, demotion, reduced hours, negative performance reviews, or other adverse actions following a complaint.

Why These Claims Matter

Hostile work environment claims play a critical role in enforcing workplace equality and dignity. Subtle, persistent harassment can be just as damaging as overt misconduct, affecting mental health, job performance, and career advancement. California’s robust protections under FEHA reflect a policy choice to address these harms early and seriously.

For employers, understanding the scope of FEHA is essential to reducing risk and maintaining a productive workplace. For employees, knowing the difference between lawful but unpleasant conduct and illegal harassment is key to recognizing when legal rights may be at stake.

Contact San Francisco Employment Law Attorney Richard Koss

Harassment and hostile work environment claims under FEHA involve nuanced legal standards that go far beyond simple workplace disagreements. The analysis depends on context, patterns of behavior, and the connection to protected characteristics. Because California law is often more expansive than federal law under Title VII, conduct that might not lead to liability in other states can still form the basis of a claim in California.

Whether evaluating potential claims or developing policies and training programs, both employers and employees benefit from a clear understanding of how FEHA defines and addresses hostile work environments in today’s workplace. For help with workplace harassment claims as a San Francisco employer or employee, contact Richard Koss, Attorney at Law, with offices in Redwood City and Antioch and serving clients throughout the Bay Area.