Who Counts as Your Supervisor for Sexual Harassment Liability in California?

Direct answer. Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment by your supervisor, not by every person who supervises someone else. In Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Court of Appeal held that strict liability applies only when the harasser is the plaintiff's supervisor and is acting as a supervisor when the harassment occurs.

Key takeaways

• Strict liability means the employer can be responsible even if it did not know about the harassment. That rule is for harassment by the victim's supervisor.
• A person who supervises other employees, but not you, is not your supervisor for this rule.
• The court did not limit the rule to your immediate boss. FEHA's definition of supervisor is broad.
• If the harasser is a coworker, the employer is liable only if it knew or should have known and failed to correct the conduct.
• Doe did not decide the negligence theory. The worker did not preserve it on appeal, and the judgment for the bank was affirmed.

What the case was about

Jane Doe sued Wells Fargo in Los Angeles Superior Court, case No. 23STCV02273, for sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The claim arose from conduct by a coworker, during and after a work trip to Bakersfield, that she alleged was nonconsensual. She also sued the bank for failing to prevent harassment and for retaliation for reporting it. On appeal she briefed only the harassment claim against the bank.

The coworker was not designated as her supervisor. They reported to the same manager. He had no power to hire or fire her, to approve her expenses, or to approve time off. He gave input to people who reviewed performance. Doe argued he supervised a class of employees below him, and that strict liability should apply to harassment by any supervisor, whether or not that person supervised her.

Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, it said it could not be strictly liable because he never supervised her. Second, it said it was not negligent because it responded immediately and appropriately to her complaints. Her opposition addressed the supervisor issue and did not address negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment on both grounds and entered judgment for the bank.

What the court held

On October 5, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Four, affirmed in a published opinion, Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., B344642. Read the official opinion. Acting Presiding Justice Tamzarian wrote the opinion.

FEHA does not use the words "strict liability." The California Supreme Court read that standard into the statute: the negligence standard is stated for harassment by an employee other than an agent or supervisor, so harassment by a supervisor is treated differently. The employer is liable for a supervisor's harassment without proof that the company was negligent. For a nonsupervisory coworker, the employer is liable only if it knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the bank that someone who is not the victim's supervisor at all cannot be acting in the capacity of that victim's supervisor when the harassment occurs. Strict liability applies only when the harasser is the plaintiff's supervisor and is acting in a supervisory capacity at the time. The court was careful about the limit of that sentence. It did not hold that only a direct boss, or only someone higher on the organization chart, can be your supervisor. Government Code section 12926(t) defines supervisor broadly, and that definition can include other people with authority over you. The holding is the other side of the line: if the alleged harasser is not your supervisor and supervises only other employees, strict liability does not apply.

The court declined to extend strict liability to every person with the title or duties of a supervisor somewhere in the company. It said that reading would make an employer strictly liable when a lower-level supervisor harasses an executive, or when someone harasses their own boss. Those people are not acting as the victim's supervisor.

On this record, the bank met its summary-judgment burden with evidence the coworker did not supervise any employees, including Doe. Her evidence addressed whether he supervised other people. She did not produce evidence that he was her supervisor. Strict liability did not apply.

The negligence and ratification theories were forfeited. She did not argue on appeal that there was a triable issue on negligence, and she raised ratification for the first time on appeal. The Court of Appeal declined to consider those arguments. It therefore did not decide whether the bank's investigation was prompt or adequate. That question was part of the trial court's ruling, not a holding the appellate court reached. Neither party recovered costs on appeal. The judgment for Wells Fargo was affirmed.

What this means for you

Who harassed you changes what you have to prove. Our sexual harassment page explains hostile-environment and quid pro quo claims. Doe is about the company's responsibility for another person's conduct.

1. Write down authority, not just titles. Note who set your schedule, approved time off, evaluated you, influenced your pay, or could hire or fire you.
2. A supervisor of other people may still be a coworker as to you. If that person had no authority over your job, plan on the negligence standard unless some other agency relationship applies.
3. Report it in writing. The negligence path depends on what the employer knew and what it did next. A written report is the fact you will need if strict liability does not apply.
4. Do not drop theories silently. Doe lost the negligence argument on appeal because it was not preserved. If you are already in a case, make sure each theory is in the papers.
5. Arbitration is a separate question. Supervisor status does not decide whether the case stays in court. See the EFAA overview and why delay can waive it.
6. Deadlines still run. Use the deadline checker. Retaliation for reporting harassment is discussed on our whistleblower and wrongful termination pages.

This decision is one of nine in our October 2026 roundup.

Frequently asked questions

Is an employer strictly liable for every supervisor's harassment?

No. Strict liability applies when that person is your supervisor and is acting as a supervisor. Supervising other people is not enough.

Does the job title decide it?

No. Doe asked whether the person supervised the worker who was harassed, not whether the person supervised anyone at all.

What if the harasser is a coworker?

The employer is liable if it knew or should have known and failed to correct it. Doe did not decide that issue, because it was not preserved.

Did the court decide whether the harassment happened?

No. It affirmed summary judgment on who counts for strict liability. The worker forfeited her other theories on appeal.

What should I record after harassment?

Who had power over your job, what you reported, and when. Those facts decide strict liability versus negligence. Check the deadline checker.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Talk with Starpoint Law. Call 310-424-9971 or request a free consultation. Starpoint Law represents California employees from offices in Century City and Sherman Oaks. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs.