In a widely- watched decision, Lillian Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, the court determined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a female LAPD Captain was entitled to $4 million in non-economic damages after a jury found she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The case centered on an AI generated deepfake nude image circulated within the department that was falsely represented as the Captain. Despite her high-ranking status and clear evidence of widespread dissemination among officers, the City of Los Angeles argued that Carranza had not experienced direct, face-to-face harassment and therefore, a hostile work environment was not present. However, the court's decision underscores that harassment under FEHA can be established through knowledge of inappropriate conduct and the creation of a toxic work environment, even when the actions are not aimed directly at the victim.
Factual and Procedural Background
In November 2018, LAPD Captain Lillian Carranza, one of the department's highest-ranking officers at the time, learned a nude photo that falsely depicted her was circulating among LAPD personnel. At the time, Carranza was leading the Commercial Crimes Division, overseeing approximately 100 employees. Although the woman in the photo was not Carranza, the resemblance was enough to convince many it was her.
Carranza reported the incident through MyVoiceLA, the City's independent channel for workplace harassment complaints. LAPD's Internal Affairs launched an investigation, assigning it to an investigator. Attempts to trace the origin of the photo were unsuccessful. During her interview with Carranza, the investigator learned Carranza could not identify individuals in possession of the photo but had received reports of its wide distribution within the department.
Once such report came from Detective Armando Munoz, a subordinate who testified he had seen uniformed officers viewing the photo and making crude comments at a police station. Munoz told Carranza the image was being talked about everywhere, confirming her fears of a department-wide issue. Carranza escalated her concerns, requesting the LAPD Chief issue a department-wide notice clarifying the image was not her and warning employees that sharing it was misconduct.
Despite acknowledging the image was intended to humiliate Carranza, the Chief ultimately declined to send out the message. He testified while such a communication might appease Carranza, he felt it could also generate more attention and disrupt the ongoing investigation. The department never informed Carranza of this decision.
Meanwhile, the internal investigation revealed the image had been shared at several locations and seen by multiple officers who believed it was Carranza. The final report concluded the image had been widely circulated and its dissemination violated the city's and LAPD's sexual harassment policies, which prohibit the sharing of sexually explicit or gender-based derogatory materials.
In January 2019, Carranza filed suit against the City of Los Angeles under FEHA for hostile work environment due to sexual harassment. By August, LAPD had completed its investigation, sustaining Carranza's claims but taking no disciplinary action against any involved officers. In September 2022, the case proceeded to trial.
The jury found in Carranza's favor, concluding she was harassed because of her gender, the harassment was severe and pervasive, and the city failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. The jury awarded her $4 million in non-economic damages" $1.5 million for past harm and $2.5 million for future harm. Judgment was entered and the City appealed.
Substantial Evidence Supported Hostile Work Environment Verdict
Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), sexual harassment- including visual, verbal, and physical harassment- is unlawful when it occurs because of sex and creates a hostile or abusive work environment. Gov. Code §12940, subd. (j)(1). To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under FEHA a plaintiff must show "she was subjected to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were:
- Unwelcome
- Because of sex, and
- Sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment." Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, (2006) 38 Cal.4th
A plaintiff is not required to show sexual advances. Harassment can include slurs, epithets, or degrading images that unreasonably interfere with job performance or emotional well- being. While historically courts have required evidence of "severe or pervasive" conduct, the California Legislature's 2019 enactment of Government Code §12923 clarified even a single incident may support a harassment claim if it sufficiently disrupts the victim's work environment. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663.
In this case, the City of Los Angeles did not challenge the jury's findings that the conduct was unwelcome, based on sex, or that the City failed to act. Rather it was argued that Carranza failed to prove the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter her working conditions. The appellate court rejected this argument.
Whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment "is not a mathematically precise test, but rather a fact-specific inquiry that turns on the totality of the circumstances." Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney's Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611. Relevant factors include:
- The frequency of the discriminatory conduct
- Its severity
- Whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and
- Whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Id.
In the current case, the evidence showed that a nude image that closely resembled Carranza was circulated widely among LAPD officers. The Chief admitted the photo was designed to harass, ridicule, and intimidate Carranza. Contrary to the City's argument, she did not rely on a single, isolated incident to prove severe and pervasive conduct, but rather on reports from multiple officers as well as an internal investigation confirming that the photo was shared at various locations across the department. A detective informed her that "people were talking about it everywhere," and LAPD's own findings substantiated the widespread distribution.
Carranza testified that officers ogled her and made her feel ashamed, and that she experienced mental and physical distress, culminating in treatment for anxiety and depression as well as high blood pressure. Despite Carranza's repeated requests, the department took no steps to clarify that the image was not her or to direct officers to stop sharing it. No one was ever disciplined.
This pattern of inaction, combined with the nature of the photo, the extent of its distribution, and its impact on Carranza's emotional and professional well-being, provided ample evidence for the jury to conclude that Carranza was subjected to a hostile work environment under the FEHA. The court found the conduct was not only humiliating and distressing, but also sufficiently altered the conditions of her employment.
FEHA Does Not Require Direct Confrontation to Prove Harassment
The City's argument that Carranza needed to experience direct, face-to-face harassment, such as sexually explicit comments, physical threats, or sexual propositions was also not persuasive to the court in this case. FEHA does not impose such a narrow requirement. A plaintiff need not be personally confronted with disrespectful or hostile behavior to establish a hostile work environment claim.
The circulation of the degrading photo and related commentary among LAPD employees created a chain of interactions, while not face-to-face, were clearly interpersonal and workplace based. Carranza was informed by colleagues about the photo and the humiliating jokes being made about her- all circumstances that fulfill the FEHA standard.
As the court explained in Thomas v. Regents of the University of California, (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, a plaintiff may suffer harassment through knowledge of conduct as well as through direct observation. FEHA protects employees from toxic work environments created by offensive behavior, regardless of whether the conduct is overt or covert, public or private.
Here, the widespread circulation of the photo and the LAPD's failure to stop it poisoned Carranza's work environment. The law does not require victims to overhear every whisper or be present at every offensive comment to prove harassment. Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the conduct was unlawful under the FEHA, even in the absence of direct confrontations.
Conclusion
This verdict not only reaffirms FEHA's expansive protection against sexual harassment but also clarifies that direct interaction is not a prerequisite for establishing a hostile work environment claim. By holding the City accountable for failing to take corrective action, the decision serves as a stark reminder that workplace misconduct, whether overtly directed or indirectly experienced through a chain of disrespectful interactions, carries serious legal consequences. Ultimately, the case stands as a significant precedent, signaling to employers that complacency in addressing even indirect forms of harassment will not be tolerated under California law.
