Sexual Harassment Employment Lawyers Los Angeles

Workplace sexual harassment in Los Angeles

Sexual harassment at work involves unwanted sexual conduct, pressure for sexual favors, or behavior that creates a hostile environment. In Los Angeles, these cases are primarily handled under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which provides robust protections for employees, applicants, unpaid interns, and independent contractors against employers with one or more employees.

Los Angeles features a diverse economy with major employers such as UCLA Health, USC, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, Netflix, Paramount, and massive retail and tourism sectors. Harassment can occur in corporate offices, on entertainment production sets, or in busy hospitality environments.

The 2026 California standards and new protections

California law consistently evolves to protect workers. A significant update impacting claims through 2026 and 2027 is AB 250 (Aguiar-Curry). This law provides a temporary lift of the statute of limitations for sexual assault cover-ups from January 1, 2026, through December 21, 2027. This allows survivors to pursue justice for older claims where an entity attempted to cover up sexual assault or harassment.

Additionally, Government Code section 12923 explicitly states that a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment if the conduct has unreasonably interfered with work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Precedent setting cases in sexual harassment

Several landmark decisions shape how sexual harassment cases are litigated in California. Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) addresses complex issues of employer liability and the scope of a hostile work environment. Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) clarified how discriminatory personnel management actions can be used as evidence to support a harassment claim. Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza (2014) established the standards for franchisor liability regarding harassment committed by a franchisee’s employees. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) strongly reinforced the single-incident rule under Government Code section 12923, confirming that one severe act can establish a hostile work environment claim.

Types of sexual harassment recognized under FEHA

Sexual harassment generally falls into two categories:

• Quid pro quo harassment: A supervisor conditions employment benefits on sexual conduct or submission to sexual advances.
• Hostile work environment harassment: Unwelcome sexual or gender-based conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to interfere with work performance.

Employers are strictly liable for harassment committed by supervisors. For coworker or third-party harassment, employers are liable if they knew or should have known and failed to take immediate corrective action. Individual harassers can also be held personally liable.

Arbitration agreements and evidence

Under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, employees generally have the option to proceed in court for sexual harassment claims, even if an arbitration agreement exists. Gathering evidence is crucial. This includes preserving text messages, emails, HR reports, and writing a contemporaneous timeline of events.

If you have experienced workplace sexual harassment in Los Angeles, Miracle Mile Law Group has the expertise to hold responsible parties accountable, navigate complex deadlines, and pursue maximum compensation for the harm you endured.