$4M Verdict for Failing to Address Workplace Gossip

With the advancement in AI technology, bad actors have new ways of causing harm, from mimicking someone’s voice to scam a loved one, to altering images and spreading false information. This type of harm is now finding its way into the workplace, and has created a nightmare for Lillian Carranza, a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

According to the LA Times, Carranza found out about a “nude photograph that was doctored to look like her and shared around the department.” As Carranza’s coworkers circulated the photograph, they began to make crude comments about her body. When Carranza reported it to her superiors, they failed to intervene.

Carranza sued the City of Los Angeles and was ultimately awarded a $4 million verdict. The case is important because it confirms that employees can bring successful harassment claims under California’s FEHA when they have secondhand knowledge of misconduct, even if they are never directly harassed. The case is also a wake-up call for employers who fail to intervene when workplace rumors and gossip get out of control.

Facts of the Case    

Carranza, an esteemed LAPD Captain, led the Commercial Crimes Division and was among the top 1% of the department’s employees. While on vacation in Hawaii, Carranza found out that a nude photograph resembling her “was circulating” within the LAPD, and she was sent a copy. Though the woman in the photo was not Carranza, she had similar facial features.

Carranza cut her trip short and immediately filed a complaint. LAPD’s Internal Affairs Department launched a workplace investigation. During the investigation, Carranza requested that:

• The LAPD attempt to find the source of the photograph, and
• Chief Michael Moore issue a notice to employees that sharing the photograph was inappropriate.

A subordinate later informed Carranza that he saw on-duty officers looking at the photo on a cellphone and making lewd comments about Carranza’s body. He said people were talking about it “everywhere I go.” Carranza again pleaded with her superiors to address the photograph with the staff and clarify that the photograph was not of Carranza.

Ultimately, the LAPD decided not to address the photograph with staff. Although they did not share their rationale with Carranza at the time, they were concerned that addressing it would cause “further embarrassment” and “disruption” to the pending investigation. Carranza sued the City of Los Angeles for a single cause of action for hostile work environment due to sexual harassment, and the jury awarded her a $4 million verdict.

Key Takeaways

Secondhand Knowledge Supports Harassment Claim

The case confirms that California’s FEHA protects victims, even when they learn of misconduct secondhand. Importantly, no one ever made lewd comments directly to Carranza. She also never directly observed the officers viewing the photograph and never overheard their comments about her body. Yet, the court emphasized that the law protects victims from workplace environments “poisoned by inappropriate conduct—whether sung, shouted, or whispered.”

Gossip and Rumors May Require Corrective Action

The case also serves as a warning for employers who allow gossip and rumors to go unchecked, especially when involving lewd and inappropriate comments relating to sex or any other protected class. In this case, the court found that corrective action was required under the FEHA to address the rumors and inappropriate conduct circulating at the LAPD, and it was reasonable for the jury to find that the LAPD fell short.

It’s also worth noting that Carranza pleaded multiple times for the LAPD to address the rumors with a statement, but they declined. This is a good reminder that employers should take a complainant’s request for resolution and/or corrective action seriously and into consideration.

FEHA Workplace Investigations

It is important that employers understand their obligation to take prompt corrective action under California’s FEHA when there is an allegation of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, as well as all required steps.

CEA members may refer to the Workplace Investigations Toolkit for required steps and sample forms. CEA also provides guidance to employers conducting an internal workplace investigation—learn more about CEA’s workplace investigation services.