A New California Ruling Clarifies What You Need to Prove
On October 5, 2026, the California Court of Appeal decided Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The court held that an employer is automatically responsible for sexual harassment by a supervisor only when that person is your supervisor.
When the person harassing you supervises other employees but not you, the automatic rule does not apply. You then have to show that your employer knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to act.
That difference matters. How and when you report harassment becomes central. Here is what happened, what the court decided, and what it means for you.
What happened
The employee, identified as Jane Doe, was a wealth advisor in Wells Fargo's private bank division. She accused a senior colleague of sexual harassment and of sexually assaulting her on a January 2020 business trip to Bakersfield. He said the encounter was consensual. (Opinion, pp. 2–4.)
The colleague was a top-ranked investment strategist with a managing director title. Doe described him as "a superior" with "power and influence." He was not her supervisor. He did not hire her, review her, or direct her work. (Opinion, pp. 2–3.)
About a month after the trip, Doe told a colleague that this man was harassing her. According to her testimony, the colleague called him "harmless." The complaint was not escalated and the bank did not investigate. (Opinion, p. 4.)
On November 9, 2020, Doe reported to the bank's ethics hotline and to her direct supervisor. The bank opened an expedited investigation eight days later and placed the man on paid leave. Ten months later, the investigator found the harassment and assault allegations unsubstantiated, found that he violated the professionalism policy, and the bank issued him a final notice. (Opinion, pp. 4–5.)
Doe sued in February 2023. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Opinion, pp. 5–6, 20.)
What the court decided
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) holds employers responsible for workplace sexual harassment in two different ways. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1).)
| Who harassed you | What you have to show | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Your supervisor | The harassment happened while that person was acting as a supervisor. The employer is automatically liable. Lawyers call this strict liability. | State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1041 |
| A coworker | The employer knew or should have known, and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. | Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1) |
Doe argued that the automatic rule applies whenever the harasser supervises anyone at the company. The court disagreed. It held that where the harasser "is not plaintiff's supervisor and only supervises other employees, strict liability does not apply." (Opinion, p. 2.)
The court's reasoning: the automatic rule exists because of the power a supervisor holds over the person being harassed. Someone who supervises a different team holds no such power over you. As to you, the court said, that person is a coworker. (Opinion, pp. 10–12.)
Two limits on the ruling are worth knowing:
"Supervisor" still means more than your direct boss. The court said it was not limiting the rule to an immediate supervisor or the people above them. FEHA's definition covers anyone with authority to hire, discipline, assign, or direct employees, or to effectively recommend those actions, using independent judgment. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (t); Opinion, p. 15.)
The court did not decide whether the bank's response was good enough. That argument was not raised on appeal, so the court treated it as forfeited. (Opinion, pp. 18–20.)
What this means for you
If the person harassing you has no authority over your job, your employer's knowledge is now the center of the case. What your employer knew, when it knew, and what it did next decide whether it is responsible.
Four things follow from that.
Report to someone with authority. In Doe, the first complaint went to a colleague and went nowhere. The investigation started only after the report to the ethics hotline and her supervisor. Use HR, the hotline, or your own supervisor.
Report in writing. An email or a hotline confirmation number shows the date your employer learned about the harassment. Keep your own record of what you reported and when.
Write down what happened. Dates, places, what was said, and who was there. Save texts and messages.
Know who your supervisor is under the law. A title is not the test. Someone who assigns your work, directs your day, or has a real say in your discipline or pay, using independent judgment, meets the definition, even if they are not your direct boss. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (t).)
Your employer cannot punish you for reporting. FEHA makes it illegal to fire, demote, or otherwise retaliate against an employee for opposing harassment or filing a complaint. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).)
What the ruling does not change
Sexual harassment at work is illegal in California no matter who does it. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1).)
Your employer is still automatically liable when your own supervisor harasses you while acting as a supervisor.
Your employer is still liable for harassment by a coworker when it knew or should have known and failed to act.
Your employer still has a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k).)
The person who harassed you is still personally liable. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(3).)
This ruling is not final yet. A Court of Appeal decision becomes final in that court 30 days after filing, and a party then has 10 days to ask the California Supreme Court to review it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.264(b), 8.500(e).) We will update this post if that happens.
This post is general information, not legal advice.
Sources
Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Oct. 5, 2026, B344642) Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. Four, certified for publication. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV02273. Page cites above are to the slip opinion. No official reporter citation exists yet.
Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (h), (j)(1), (j)(3), (k).
Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (t), definition of "supervisor."
State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026.
Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.264(b) and 8.500(e), finality and petitions for review.