(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026
Supreme Court of California · Decided November 24, 2003
01. Facts
Theresa V. McGinnis began working for the State Department of Health Services (DHS) in 1992, and in August 1995 was transferred to the Maternal and Child Health Branch, where she worked under the supervision of Cary Hall (31 Cal.4th at p. 1035). She alleged that Hall sexually harassed her, and the case reached the Supreme Court on the employer’s liability for a supervisor’s hostile-environment harassment and on whether damages the employee could have avoided by using the employer’s complaint procedures may be recovered (id. at p. 1035).
02. Procedural posture
The case arose after the trial court denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion, so the court took the facts from the record on that motion. The Supreme Court resolved the liability and damages questions and reversed in part (id. at p. 1035).
03. Issue
Whether an employer is strictly liable under the FEHA for hostile-environment sexual harassment by a supervisor, and whether the damages recoverable include harm the employee could have avoided by reasonably using the employer’s preventive and corrective measures.
Holding
An employer is strictly liable under the FEHA for a supervisor’s hostile-environment sexual harassment. But the avoidable-consequences doctrine applies: the employer may avoid liability for those damages the employee could have avoided with reasonable effort — for example, by timely using the employer’s complaint procedures — without undue risk, expense, or humiliation.
05. Reasoning
The court held that supervisor harassment is imputed to the employer as a matter of strict liability because supervisors act with the employer’s authority. Strict liability, however, is not absolute liability: ordinary tort principles of mitigation apply, so an employer that exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment may reduce its damages exposure to the extent the employee unreasonably failed to use those measures and thereby failed to avoid harm. The doctrine limits damages; it does not eliminate liability for harm that reasonable use of the procedures would not have prevented.
Practice Pointer
This decision frames both the strength and the discipline of a supervisor-harassment case. Plaintiff’s counsel can rely on strict employer liability for a supervisor’s hostile-environment harassment — no need to prove employer negligence. But anticipate the avoidable-consequences defense: develop why the employee did not report sooner (fear of retaliation, futility, the supervisor’s own role in the complaint process, humiliation), and document harm that earlier reporting would not have prevented, to preserve the full damages.
06. Open questions
The decision recognized the avoidable-consequences defense but left its application intensely fact-specific — what counts as a reasonable opportunity to complain, and when an employee’s failure to use it is unreasonable, are jury questions that continue to be litigated case by case.
Cite this entry
State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026.
“Plaintiff Theresa V. McGinnis began working for the State Department of Health Services … in 1992.” — 31 Cal.4th at p. 1035
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].