California Court of Appeals Affirms that Secondhand Knowledge is Sufficient to Support a FEHA Harassment Claim

California Court of Appeals Affirms that Secondhand Knowledge is Sufficient to Support a FEHA Harassment Claim

Recently, in Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, 2025 WL 1482443, the California Court of Appeals certified for partial publication its ruling that even “secondhand knowledge,” or a “chain of interpersonal interactions,” can be sufficient to support a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) finding of “severe or pervasive harassment that altered the conditions of [the] workplace.”

In Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, the Plaintiff Lillian Carranza, a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD or Department) sued the City of Los Angeles for hostile work environment due to sexual harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

In November 2018, Carranza received a phone call while on vacation informing her that a nude photo resembling her “was circulating” within the LAPD and she received a copy. The image in question was a topless photo of a woman who had facial features similar to Carranza’s and was pursing her lips. Carranza immediately filed a complaint, cut her vacation short, and flew home. When LAPD conducted an internal investigation, Carranza told the investigator assigned to her case that she wanted LAPD to find the source of the photo and asked that LAPD Chief Moore issue a notice that sharing the photo was inappropriate.

On December 22, 2018, Carranza received a call from Detective Munoz, who worked in different LAPD stations around Los Angeles, informing her that he walked past three uniformed officers, including a supervisor, looking at the photo and saying “‘Look at her tits.  Oh, look it.  I knew she was like this.’”  Carranza asked him where the photo was being circulated, and Munoz replied, “I have heard people talking about it, you know, everywhere I go.” The same day, Carranza emailed Deputy Chief McCarthy about the investigation, who replied that the matter was taken seriously and asked Carranza to identify the officers involved. On December 23, 2018, Carranza replied stating that she wanted to see “corrective action” be taken to inform members of the Department that the picture is not of her, and that distributing the photos is misconduct and could be a criminal offense. Carranza further stated, “simply investigating does not stop the action of 100s, if not 1000s of employees.” McCarthy responded by stating that the investigation was being taken seriously and wished Carranza a Merry Christmas.

On December 24, 2018, Carranza testified that she was feeling extremely upset about the events and the lack of action from the Department. She experienced shortness of breath, palpitations, pain in her left arm, and high blood pressure, resulting in her being hospitalized overnight and released on Christmas Day. Chief Moore and Deputy Chief McCarthy discussed Carranza’s request that they issue a Department-wide communication but ultimately decided against it as they felt that it would further embarrass her or lead to more people who previously were unaware of the picture to seek it out. No one informed Carranza of this decision or the reasoning.

The LAPD’s investigation identified 10-13 people who saw the photo, and four separate incidents of people viewing or hearing about the photo. They deemed this serious misconduct, but did not discipline any employees because they could not identify who was responsible for the photo’s distribution.

There were additional incidents of people who overheard conversations and officers viewing the picture between November 2018 and February 2019, but these additional incidents were not permitted to be introduced as evidence at trial.

Carranza testified that no one ever directly joked, harassed, or made derogatory comments regarding the picture to her. However, she had difficulty concentrating at work and felt uncomfortable. She described incidents where officers stopped talking and looked at their phone when she approached, and incidents in the elevators where male officers would look her up and down and grin. She began to avoid public settings and was no longer comfortable speaking to the public and press, even though that was a part of her job. She felt that her personal and professional reputation was harmed, and was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, psychological factors impacting physical health, and a panic disorder, she was prescribed blood pressure and psychiatric medication. Experts opined that she would need regular treatment for at least 6 more years.

The jury found for Carranza, awarding her $4 million in noneconomic damages. The City moved for a new trial for, among other reasons, insufficient evidence of severe or pervasive harassment, saying that Carranza had not endured sexually harassing interpersonal interactions. The trial court denied the new trial motion.

The City argued on appeal that to meet the standard for severe or pervasive harassment under FEHA required “extreme” conduct and a “hellish” workplace, and here there was a single incident of harassment in which several officers viewed a photo. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

Carranza’s claim was not based on one incident, but instead on “her reasonable understanding that the circulation continued for some length of time and involved ‘dozens if not hundreds’ of officers.” The Court of Appeal found that LAPD’s failure to order LAPD officers to stop sharing the photo, inform them that it was not a photo of Carranza, or discipline anyone involved, showed that the LAPD was allowing the distribution to “continue unchecked” and demonstrated the pervasiveness and severity of the harassment itself and the impact on Carranza’s work environment. The Court said that “considering the totality of the circumstances” the jury could find that this meets the standard for severe or pervasive harassment.

The City also argued that FEHA required that Carranza was harassed directly, but the Court held that “the photo and related comments were shared among LAPD employees, and others then informed Carranza about the circulation and the humiliating jokes at her expense. That is a chain of interpersonal interactions that satisfies FEHA.” (ital. in orig.) The Court went on to say, “FEHA does not reward discretion in harassing behaviors. Rather it protects victims from workplace environments poisoned by inappropriate conduct – whether ‘sung, shouted, or whispered.’”

After Carranza, plaintiffs may prove a hostile work environment due to harassment based on secondhand knowledge or a chain of interpersonal interactions. They need not show a direct incident of harassment to demonstrate the impact that the behavior has had on them.

If you believe your employer has violated your workplace rights, contact Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C..