Unlawful sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment requires unwelcome or unwanted conduct based on a worker’s sex that also occurs with such severity or frequency to impact that worker’s working conditions, job performance or work environment. Usually, this conduct is directed at the worker. Recently though, the California Court of Appeal explored how secondhand knowledge of inappropriate, sex-based conduct may impact a work environment and lead to unlawful sexual harassment (Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, No. B327196, (May 23, 2025)).
In November 2018, Lillian Carranza, a captain with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), was on vacation when she received a call from her attorney that a nude photo resembling her was circulating within the LAPD ranks. The photo depicted a closeup of a woman’s naked upper torso, including her face. The attorney sent a copy of the photo to Carranza who confirmed it was not her but that the woman in the photo had similar facial features.
Carranza immediately lodged a complaint with Los Angeles’ independent agency that fields sexual harassment complaints from city employees. The city opened an investigation and interviewed Carranza, who confirmed the photo was not her but believed the photo was being shared within the LAPD by officers believing it was related to her. Carranza asked for the LAPD chief to send a memo that distributing the photo was misconduct, which the chief didn’t do, believing that doing so could lead the photo to even further distribution and also impair the investigation.
While the investigation was ongoing, the photo was shared among LAPD employees at various locations and departments throughout the city. In the reported incidents, the photo was being shared on the assumption that the female in the photo was Carranza with more comments about her body made. Carranza continued to complain to the investigator and continued to insist that LAPD leadership make a statement confirming the photo was not her and to stop distributing it.
On January 25, 2019, two months after her initial complaint to the city, Carranza filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for sexual harassment based upon a hostile work environment.
By August 2019, the LAPD concluded its investigation substantiating Carranza’s claims that unknown department personnel were circulating a nude photo purporting to be Carranza in at least four separate incidents in separate locations. Based on the findings, the investigation concluded that this conduct violated both the city’s and LAPD’s sexual harassment policy — but didn’t discipline any employees.
In September 2022, the jury trial for Carranza’s sexual harassment lawsuit began. Carranza would testify at the trial that no one ever directly interacted with her regarding the photo and her entire experience was secondhand through other employees telling her the conduct was ongoing, but this knowledge impacted her working environment and made it difficult to concentrate. The jury found in Carranza’s favor and awarded her $4 million in damages. The city appealed.
The city’s main argument on appeal is that Carranza did not experience severe or pervasive harassment because she had not “endured sexually harassing interpersonal…interactions.” In other words, because Carranza testified that no one ever interacted with her with the photo in an inappropriate manner or made the lewd comments directly to her, she didn’t experience unlawful sexual harassment.
While the city argued that to be severe or pervasive the conduct must be “extreme” or the environment “hellish,” the appellate court noted that a hostile work environment exists “when the harassing conduct sufficiently offends, humiliates, distresses, or intrudes upon its victim, so as to disrupt the victim’s ability to perform the job as usual, or otherwise interfere with and undermine the victim’s personal sense of well-being.”
To this end, the court noted that Carranza was made aware that this photo purporting to be her was “circulating” throughout the department and that people were ogling the photo believing it was her and making lewd comments about her. In fact, the court notes even the police chief found the conduct around the photo was meant to “harass, intimidate, … [and slander] Carranza.”
Compounding her difficulties, the LAPD allowed the distribution to go unchecked for months despite repeated requests from Carranza to confirm that distributing the photo violated city and LAPD policies — as it would ultimately conclude in the investigation. Based on this conduct, as well as Carranza’s contemporaneous and credible assertions of a hostile work environment, the court concluded that Carranza presented substantial evidence to show she experienced unlawful sexual harassment based upon a hostile work environment.
For employers, this case offers several key takeaways, but most importantly — an employee does not need to directly experience harassing conduct if the conduct becomes known and negatively alters the employee’s work environment.
Further, the city’s failure to attempt any remedial intervention to try to stop the ongoing conduct affected the case’s outcome. An employer has an affirmative duty to prevent future instances of workplace harassment, and when the employer is aware harassment may be occurring and does nothing, it is the same as ratifying that conduct.
Lastly, even after completing the investigation, the city took no action against any employee, even though it found the photo’s distribution violated policies and had identified officers who had seen the photograph. Again, the city failed to take action that may prevent future harassment by allowing the photo’s distribution to go unchecked.
Matthew J. Roberts, Associate General Counsel, Labor and Employment
CalChamber members can read more about the Hostile Environment Harassment in the HR Library. Not a member? Learn how to power your business with a CalChamber membership.
