Background
A Wells Fargo wealth advisor alleged that an influential investment strategist sexually harassed and assaulted her. Although the strategist supervised some employees, he did not supervise Doe, who worked with him on client teams.
Doe sued under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The dispute on appeal was whether an employer is strictly liable whenever the alleged harasser supervises anyone, or only when that person is the plaintiff’s supervisor.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that FEHA’s strict-liability rule applies when the harasser is the victim’s supervisor. A person does not become the plaintiff’s supervisor merely because the person has seniority, influence, or supervisory authority over other workers.
Because the alleged harasser did not supervise Doe, Wells Fargo’s liability was governed by negligence principles rather than automatic employer liability. The court affirmed the judgment, focusing on the statutory relationship between the harasser and the particular employee claiming harm.
Key Takeaways
- The relevant question is whether the harasser supervised the claimant, not whether the harasser supervised somebody.
- Job titles, sales success, and informal influence do not alone establish supervisory status under FEHA.
- Claims involving a nonsupervisory harasser turn on whether the employer knew or should have known and responded adequately.
- Employers still face potential liability even when strict liability does not apply.
Why It Matters
The published ruling gives employers and employees a clearer way to classify harassment claims. Early discovery should focus on actual authority over the plaintiff—hiring, discipline, assignments, evaluation, and meaningful direction—rather than titles alone. Employers should not read the decision as permission to ignore misconduct by powerful coworkers; negligence liability remains available.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket