When an employee is sexually harassed at work by a manager, supervisor, or senior executive, the employer may face strict liability under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This means that the employer can be held responsible for the supervisor’s unlawful harassment even if the employer did not know about the misconduct when it occurred.
But what happens when the alleged harasser is a manager who supervises other employees, but has no authority over the person being harassed?
In Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (October 5, 2026), the California Court of Appeal addressed this important distinction and clarified when strict employer liability applies. The plaintiff there worked as a wealth advisor at Wells Fargo. She alleged that a senior investment strategist sexually harassed and assaulted her during a business trip. The alleged harasser was a successful and influential employee who held a senior title. He also exercised supervisory authority over certain support employees. However, he did not supervise the plaintiff. He had no authority to hire, fire, discipline, or evaluate her performance. The plaintiff argued that Wells Fargo should nevertheless be strictly liable because the alleged harasser was a supervisor of other employees.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. The Doe decision clarifies that simply holding a managerial position or supervising other employees does not automatically make someone the plaintiff’s supervisor. For example, suppose a sales manager supervises ten sales representatives but sexually harasses an employee in the accounting department who does not report to that manager. The employer would not automatically be strictly liable merely because the harasser manages the sales team. The accounting employee could still have a viable harassment claim against the employer, but would generally need to establish another basis for employer liability, such as the employer’s negligent failure to prevent or correct the harassment.
Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not hold that only an employee’s immediate supervisor can trigger strict employer liability. California Government Code section 12926(t) defines supervisory authority broadly. Depending on the circumstances, it may include authority to assign work, recommend discipline, influence employment decisions, or direct employees using independent judgment. Someone who is not officially listed as your supervisor may nevertheless qualify as one under FEHA. For example, a department director who does not directly manage an employee but has meaningful authority over that employee’s assignments, promotions, or discipline may qualify as a supervisor.
The important question is not merely the person’s job title, seniority, or influence within the company. The important question is what actual supervisory authority that person had over the employee who was allegedly harassed.
What If the Employer Knew About the Harassment and Did Nothing?
This is where the distinction between strict liability and negligence becomes particularly important. Even when the alleged harasser is not the plaintiff’s supervisor, the employer may still face liability if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to respond appropriately. Consider an employee who repeatedly complains to HR that a senior coworker is making sexual comments, sending inappropriate messages, or engaging in unwanted physical contact. If management ignores those complaints and the harassment continues, the employer may face liability even though the harasser had no supervisory authority over that employee.
In Doe, Wells Fargo argued that it responded appropriately to the plaintiff’s complaints. The trial court agreed that the plaintiff had not established employer negligence.
Why This Decision Matters to Employees and Employers
For employees considering a sexual harassment claim, it is important to understand the harasser’s actual position and authority. A senior title such as director, vice president, or managing director may sound impressive, but it does not necessarily establish supervisory authority over you. On the other hand, someone with a relatively modest title may qualify as your supervisor if that person has meaningful authority to direct your work or influence employment decisions.
For employers, the decision underscores the importance of understanding actual reporting relationships and supervisory responsibilities. A person’s title alone does not determine the applicable liability standard. It also reinforces the need to investigate harassment complaints promptly and take appropriate corrective action, regardless of whether the alleged harasser is a supervisor, manager, or coworker.