California Workplace Harassment Laws: FEHA 1-Employee Rule (2026)

Harassment because of a protected trait is an unlawful employment practice in California under Government Code § 12940(j)(1), part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and for harassment the act covers any employer that regularly employs one or more persons or regularly receives the services of one or more contractors (§ 12940(j)(4)(A)). The five-employee threshold most people associate with FEHA (§ 12926(d)) governs its other provisions, such as discrimination, not harassment.

Four other features stand out: an employee who harasses is personally liable (§ 12940(j)(3)), the Legislature has declared that a single incident can be enough to reach a jury (§ 12923(b)), complaints to the Civil Rights Department are due within three years (§ 12960(e)(5)), and employers regularly employing five or more persons, or regularly receiving the services of five or more contractors, must train their staff every two years (§ 12950.1). For how other states compare, see workplace harassment laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-20. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California state law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors, coworkers and nonemployees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §§ 12923, 12926, 12940, 12950, 12950.1, 12960, 12964.5, 12965) and related Code of Civil Procedure sections (§§ 527.8, 1001). It does not cover wrongful firing or the full complaint and lawsuit procedure (see California wrongful termination), damages estimates, criminal harassment or stalking, harassment outside employment, local ordinances, or federal-employee procedure.

California harassment rules at a glance

What FEHA prohibits

Section 12940(j)(1) makes it an unlawful employment practice for "an employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship training program or any training program leading to employment, or any other person, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, or veteran or military status, to harass an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract."

The same subdivision adds two points that shape every harassment claim: "Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment," and "An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring."

Harassment and discrimination are separate wrongs

The California Supreme Court explained in Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686 that "In the FEHA, the terms 'discriminate' and 'harass' appear in separate provisions and define distinct wrongs," and that "harassment often does not involve any official exercise of delegated power on behalf of the employer."

Harassment because of sex

For the harassment subdivision, "'harassment' because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions," and "Sexually harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire" (§ 12940(j)(4)(C)).

Which California employers are covered

FEHA uses two different definitions of employer, and the harassment one is broader.

• Harassment: "For purposes of this subdivision only, 'employer' means any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state, or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities" (§ 12940(j)(4)(A)).
• Everything else in § 12940, including discrimination: "'Employer' includes any person regularly employing five or more persons" (§ 12926(d)), along with agents of an employer, the state and its subdivisions, and cities.
• Religious nonprofits: for the harassment subdivision, employer "does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2" (§ 12940(j)(4)(B)).

Protected traits

The harassment list in § 12940(j)(1) matches the discrimination list in § 12940(a). Besides race, religious creed, color, national origin and sex, it names ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, reproductive health decisionmaking, and veteran or military status.

"'Age' refers to the chronological age of any individual who has reached a 40th birthday" (§ 12926(b)). The listed traits also include "any combination of those characteristics," "a perception that the person has any of those characteristics," and "a perception that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics" (§ 12926(o)).

FEHA's definitions also provide that "'Race' is inclusive of traits associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles," which include "such hairstyles as braids, locs, and twists" (§ 12926(w)-(x)).

Interns, volunteers, contractors and customers

FEHA's harassment ban protects more than employees. Section 12940(j)(1) covers applicants, unpaid interns and volunteers, and persons providing services under a contract.

The same subdivision addresses harassment by people who do not work for the employer at all, such as customers or vendors: "An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to harassment of employees, applicants, unpaid interns or volunteers, or persons providing services pursuant to a contract in the workplace, if the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered."

When is harassment unlawful? The hostile work environment standard

California keeps the "severe or pervasive" framework but tells courts how to apply it. Section 12923, added by SB 1300 effective January 1, 2019, states:

"(b) A single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. In that regard, the Legislature hereby declares its rejection of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's opinion in Brooks v. City of San Mateo (2000) 229 F.3d 917 and states that the opinion shall not be used in determining what kind of conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act." (Cal. Gov. Code § 12923(b))

Section 12923(a) adopts the standard that a plaintiff "need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment," and § 12923(d) states that "The legal standard for sexual harassment should not vary by type of workplace." The same section declares that "Harassment cases are rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment" (§ 12923(e)). Whether particular conduct meets the standard is a question for the facts of each case.

Who is responsible: the employer and the harasser

Coworkers. Section 12940(j)(1) states: "Harassment of an employee, an applicant, an unpaid intern or volunteer, or a person providing services pursuant to a contract by an employee, other than an agent or supervisor, shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action."

Supervisors and agents. That knew-or-should-have-known test is written for harassment by an employee "other than an agent or supervisor." The statute does not apply it to harassment by an agent or supervisor. The California Supreme Court has described the rule this way: "When the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is strictly liable for the supervisor's actions," while for a nonsupervisory employee "employer liability turns on a showing of negligence" (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686). That standard comes from case law, not from the words of § 12940(j).

Duty to prevent. Section 12940(k) separately makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring."

The individual harasser. Section 12940(j)(3) provides: "An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee, regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action."

Helping or encouraging. Section 12940(i) makes it unlawful "For any person to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this part, or to attempt to do so."

Retaliation for complaining

Section 12940(h) makes it unlawful "For any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part." Firings after a complaint, and how they fit with California's default employment rule, are covered on the California at-will employment and California wrongful termination pages.

Deadlines and where to file

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) takes FEHA complaints.

• CRD complaint: a complaint alleging a violation of Article 1 (commencing with § 12940) "shall not be filed after the expiration of three years from the date upon which the unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred" (§ 12960(e)(5)).
• Late discovery: the deadline can extend "For a period of time not to exceed 90 days following the expiration of the applicable filing deadline, if a person allegedly aggrieved by an unlawful practice first obtained knowledge of the facts of the alleged unlawful practice during the 90 days following the expiration of the applicable filing deadline" (§ 12960(e)(6)(A)).
• Lawsuit: the CRD's right-to-sue notice must say that the person "may bring a civil action under this part against the person, employer, labor organization, or employment agency named in the verified complaint within one year from the date of that notice" (§ 12965(c)(1)(D)).
• Tolling: § 12960(f), amended effective January 1, 2026, contains tolling rules for the civil-action deadline. Where the period is tolled under § 12965(e) for a matter also before the EEOC, "The time for commencing an action ... expires when the federal right-to-sue period to commence a civil action expires, or one year from the date of the right-to-sue notice by the department, whichever is later" (§ 12965(e)(2)).
• Dual filing with the EEOC: the CRD and the EEOC have a worksharing agreement, and the EEOC explains that when an individual "initially files with a FEPA that has a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, and the allegation is covered by a law enforced by the EEOC, the FEPA will dual file the charge with EEOC ... but will usually retain the charge for processing."

Separately, the EEOC states that a federal charge is generally due within 180 calendar days, extended to 300 where a state or local agency enforces a law on the same basis, and that in harassment cases the period runs from the last incident of harassment; the workplace harassment laws hub explains the federal layer.

The CRD's complaint process page describes intake. The steps between filing and suit, remedies and damages are covered on the California wrongful termination page, and the California employment discrimination settlement calculator is an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Training, posters and policies

Training. Section 12950.1(a)(1) provides that "an employer having five or more employees shall provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees in California." After the initial deadline of January 1, 2021, "each employer covered by this section shall provide sexual harassment training and education to each employee in California once every two years. New nonsupervisory employees shall be provided training within six months of hire."

New supervisors must be trained "within six months of the assumption of a supervisory position," and seasonal or temporary workers hired to work for less than six months "within 30 calendar days after the hire date or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first" (§ 12950.1(a)(1), (f)). The training must also cover prevention of abusive conduct and harassment based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation (§ 12950.1(a)(2)-(3)).

For this section only, "employer" means any person "regularly employing five or more persons or regularly receiving the services of five or more persons providing services pursuant to a contract" (§ 12950.1(h)(1)). That training threshold is higher than the harassment coverage threshold of one or more.

Coming in 2028. AB 1803 (Stats. 2026, ch. 547), approved by the Governor on September 27, 2026, amends § 12950.1 so that "Beginning January 1, 2028, an employer shall also include anti-hate speech training as a component of the training and education" described above. A training that "includes information about the prohibition against unlawful harassment and prevention of abusive conduct that is based on an individual's protected characteristics listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 satisfies the requirement." This is not in force until January 1, 2028.

Posters. Under § 12950, each employer must post the CRD's poster "in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace" and must also "Post a poster developed by the department regarding transgender rights in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace." The section adds that "an employer's compliance with this section does not insulate the employer from liability for sexual harassment of any current or former employee or applicant." Each employer must also distribute the CRD's information sheet on sexual harassment to its employees, or equivalent information covering at least the components the statute lists, such as the definition of sexual harassment, the employer's internal complaint process and how to contact the department (§ 12950(b)).

NDAs, separation agreements and settlements

California limits confidentiality terms at three stages.

Agreements during employment (Gov. Code § 12964.5(a)). An employer may not, "in exchange for a raise or bonus, or as a condition of employment or continued employment," require an employee to sign a release of a FEHA claim or right, or "a nondisparagement agreement or other document to the extent it has the purpose or effect of denying the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace." Such an agreement "is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable" (§ 12964.5(a)(2)).

Separation agreements (Gov. Code § 12964.5). "It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer or former employer to include in any agreement related to an employee's separation from employment any provision that prohibits the disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace" (§ 12964.5(b)(1)(A)). The section "does not apply to a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve an underlying claim under this part that has been filed by an employee in court, before an administrative agency, in an alternative dispute resolution forum, or through an employer's internal complaint process" (§ 12964.5(d)(1)). An employer offering a separation agreement must tell the employee of the right to consult an attorney and allow "not less than five business days" to do so (§ 12964.5(b)(4)). SB 331 amended the section effective January 1, 2022.

Settlement agreements (Code Civ. Proc. § 1001). Section 1001 prohibits a settlement-agreement provision that prevents or restricts disclosure of factual information related to "a claim filed in a civil action or a complaint filed in an administrative action" involving workplace harassment or discrimination, failure to prevent it, or retaliation under § 12940, or sexual harassment as defined in Civil Code § 51.9. Such a provision in an agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019 is void (§ 1001(a), (d)), but the amendments SB 331 made to the workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation category apply only to agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2022 (§ 1001(g)). Two exceptions matter to both sides: "a provision that shields the identity of the claimant and all facts that could lead to the discovery of the claimant's identity, including pleadings filed in court, may be included within a settlement agreement at the request of the claimant" (§ 1001(c)), and the section "does not prohibit the entry or enforcement of a provision in any agreement that precludes the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement of a claim" (§ 1001(e)).

Workplace violence and harassment restraining orders

A separate court route lets the employer act. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8(a), "Any employer or collective bargaining representative of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee." This is a protective-order procedure brought by the employer or union, not a FEHA claim against the employer.

Is workplace bullying illegal in California?

FEHA's harassment ban reaches harassment because of the traits listed in § 12940(j)(1). Section 12940 does not list general bullying as an unlawful practice. The term "abusive conduct" appears in § 12950.1, which defines it "For purposes of this section" (the training section) as "conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer's legitimate business interests," and adds that "A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious."

Documenting harassment and workplace monitoring

California's rules on recording a conversation at work, including one with a harasser, are on the California workplace recording laws page. Employer monitoring of email, devices and workspaces is covered on the California employee monitoring laws page.

Recent changes to California harassment law

• 2019: SB 1300 added § 12923 (single incident; rejection of Brooks), effective January 1, 2019.
• 2022: SB 331 amended § 12964.5 on separation agreements, effective January 1, 2022.
• 2026: SB 477 (Stats. 2025, ch. 321), effective January 1, 2026, amended §§ 12926, 12960 and 12965, including the tolling rules for the time to sue.
• 2027 (enacted, not yet in force): AB 2563 (Stats. 2026, ch. 952), approved September 30, 2026, amends FEHA's definition of "sex" (§ 12926(r)) to include the characteristics listed in new Government Code § 27, such as "degree of conformity to sex or gender stereotypes" and "variations in sex characteristics, including intersex traits," effective January 1, 2027.
• 2028 (enacted, not yet in force): AB 1803 (Stats. 2026, ch. 547) adds anti-hate speech training to § 12950.1 beginning January 1, 2028.

Related pages

• Workplace harassment laws by state
• California wrongful termination
• California at-will employment laws
• California employee monitoring laws
• California workplace recording laws

This article provides general legal information about California workplace harassment law under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and related statutes as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in California or the California Civil Rights Department.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is workplace harassment illegal in California?

Yes. Government Code § 12940(j)(1) makes it an unlawful employment practice to harass an employee, applicant, unpaid intern or volunteer, or contractor because of race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, age (40 or older) or another listed trait.

Does California harassment law apply to small employers?

Yes. For harassment, § 12940(j)(4)(A) defines employer as any person regularly employing one or more persons or regularly receiving the services of one or more contractors. The five-employee threshold in § 12926(d) applies to FEHA's other provisions, such as discrimination, not to harassment.

Can a harasser be personally sued in California?

Under § 12940(j)(3), an employee of a covered entity is personally liable for harassment the employee perpetrates, regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of the conduct.

Can one incident be harassment in California?

Section 12923(b) states that a single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding a hostile work environment if it unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

How long do you have to file a harassment complaint in California?

A complaint to the Civil Rights Department alleging a violation of § 12940 must be filed within three years from the date of the unlawful practice (§ 12960(e)(5)). The right-to-sue notice then states that a civil action may be brought within one year from the date of the notice (§ 12965(c)(1)(D)), subject to tolling rules.

Is sexual harassment training required in California?

For employers regularly employing five or more persons or regularly receiving the services of five or more contractors, yes. Section 12950.1 requires at least two hours for supervisors and one hour for nonsupervisory employees in California, repeated every two years. New nonsupervisory employees and new supervisors are trained within six months, and seasonal or temporary workers hired for less than six months within 30 calendar days or 100 hours worked, whichever comes first.

Can a California employer require an NDA about harassment?

Not as a condition of the job. Section 12964.5(a) bars an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment or continued employment or in exchange for a raise or bonus, a release of FEHA claims or a nondisparagement agreement that denies the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace. A separation agreement may not prohibit that disclosure either, though § 12964.5 does not apply to a negotiated settlement of a claim already filed in court, with an agency, in an alternative dispute resolution forum or through the employer's internal complaint process. For settlements of a harassment claim filed in court or a complaint filed with an agency, Code of Civil Procedure § 1001 voids terms that restrict disclosure of the facts, while still allowing the amount paid to stay confidential.

Is workplace bullying illegal in California?

FEHA's harassment ban reaches harassment because of the traits listed in § 12940(j)(1). 'Abusive conduct' is defined in § 12950.1 for purposes of that training section, which does not list it as a separate unlawful practice.