A recent California appellate court decision confirms that workers may still have a sexual harassment claim even when they only learn about offensive conduct secondhand.
In Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, decided in May 2025, a Captain in the Los Angeles Police Department discovered that a nude photo falsely claimed to be her was circulating throughout the 13,000-person department. She never witnessed officers looking at the photo herself, and no one directly harassed her to her face about it, but she nevertheless learned of the wide circulation of the photos and the comments being made about it. She reported it to her superiors, who did nothing about. In the end, she was awarded $4 million in damages, and California’s Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict.
When Your Workplace Becomes Toxic—Even Without Direct Contact
The Captain’s nightmare began with a phone call during her vacation. Her attorney informed her that a topless photo resembling her was “circulating” within the LAPD. Though the woman in the explicit image wasn’t actually Carranza, she bore similar facial features—close enough that LAPD personnel believed it was their high-ranking colleague.
The harassment escalated when a Detective, who worked under Carranza’s command, called to report what he’d witnessed. He’d overheard three uniformed officers—including a supervisor—looking at the nude photo and making crude comments about Carranza’s body.
When Carranza asked where else the photo was being shared, the Detective’s responded with: “I have heard people talking about it, you know, everywhere I go.” He testified that the photo “was a hot subject at the time.”
The Department’s Non-Response
Despite the Captain’s repeated requests for the LAPD to issue a department-wide notice clarifying that the photo wasn’t her and that sharing it constituted misconduct, the Chief refused to act.
The Chief later testified that he believed the photo was intended to “harass, intimidate, . . . [and] slander” the Captain and cause her “ridicule or embarrassment.” He acknowledged that sharing such images amounted to misconduct. Yet he chose not to send the requested communication, fearing it might cause “further embarrassment” or prompt the department’s 13,000 employees to ask “what photograph are we talking about and how can we find it.”
Although not mentioned in the opinion, the Chief’s testimony seems to be expressing caution at the risk of the phenomenon sometimes called the Streisand Effect where the act of attempting to suppress information causes increased awareness of it and causes it to be even more widely distributed. The opinion does not analyze this reasoning, however, since the City did not challenge the jury’s finding that the City failed to take immediate corrective action after learning that on-duty LAPD officers were viewing, electronically sharing, and joking with colleagues about the degrading photo of the Captain on appeal.
The court’s opinion nevertheless considered the Chief’s response, or rather lack thereof, when evaluating the severity of the harassment. The opinion notes, “That the LAPD allowed the distribution to continue unchecked not only speaks to the sufficiency of the LAPD’s response to the harassment, but also to the pervasiveness and severity of the harassment itself and the impact on Carranza’s work environment.” In other words, the harassment was made even more severe because her employer did nothing about it.
The Impact on the Captain
The severity was compounded by the Captain’s reasonable belief and understanding about the dissemination of the photo and the comments being made about it. Indeed, the psychological toll on the Captain was severe. On Christmas Eve 2018, the Captain experienced shortness of breath, palpitations, and high blood pressure, requiring emergency hospitalization. She developed major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic attacks. Male officers would look her up and down and grin when she entered elevators. She became afraid to approach groups of officers looking at their phones, wondering if they were viewing the photo. This and other evidence presented demonstrated that the Captain’s work environment was impacted by the harassment.
Secondhand Knowledge Was Sufficient
The jury found that Carranza had experienced severe and pervasive sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment. Critically, this harassment claim succeeded even though:
- Carranza never personally witnessed anyone viewing the photo
- No one directly joked about the photo to her face
- No one made derogatory comments directly to her
- She learned about most incidents only through secondhand reports
The City of Los Angeles appealed, arguing that harassment requires direct, face-to-face interactions. The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this position, explaining that “FEHA does not reward discretion in harassing behaviors.” The opinion also explained, “FEHA does not require that [the Captain] have (1) had any direct interaction in which a coworker was disrespectful to her regarding the photo, (2) experienced direct ‘sexual hostility in her day-to-day work environment,’ or (3) been ‘assaulted, threatened, propositioned, subjected to physical contact, or subjected to explicit language in her presence.’ Instead, California law protects workers from environments “poisoned by inappropriate conduct—whether ‘sung, shouted, or whispered.'”
Why This Matters
Among the implications of the ruling, it reinforces two important principles that many workers may not know:
Secondhand knowledge counts. California courts recognize that “a person can perceive, and be affected by, harassing conduct” through “knowledge of that harassment” as well as by “personal observation.” Workers who learn that colleagues are sharing degrading images, making sexual comments behind their backs, or creating hostile conditions they’re not directly witnessing may still have valid harassment claims.
Employer inaction amplifies harm. The court noted that when employers allow harassment to continue “unchecked,” this “speaks to . . . the pervasiveness and severity of the harassment itself and the impact on [the worker’s] work environment.”
While this case involved a police captain, similar protections extend to many workers across California.
Moving Forward
The Carranza decision sends a clear message: California’s harassment laws are designed to protect workers from toxic environments, regardless of whether they personally witness every incident. Workers who learn that colleagues are sharing inappropriate content about them, making sexual comments behind their backs, or otherwise creating hostile conditions may have stronger legal protections than they may realize.
Note: This analysis is based on portions of Carranza v. City of Los Angeles (2025) and should not be considered specific legal advice. Workers experiencing harassment should consult with an attorney.