If you’re being sexually harassed at work, it’s easy to wonder if what you’re experiencing is “bad enough” to take action. Maybe your boss isn’t the one harassing you. Maybe it’s a coworker who makes constant inappropriate comments or a manager who pressures you to accept unwanted attention. You might even worry that you’ll face backlash for speaking up.
Matt Ruggles is an employment lawyer with over 30 years of experience helping California employees protect themselves from sexual harassment, including indirect sexual harassment, and retaliation. Matt knows that many employees feel trapped, unsure of what qualifies as sexual harassment, and afraid of making the situation worse. But here’s the truth: Under California law, it is illegal for an employer to allow sexual harassment to continue unchecked, even if it’s coming from a coworker, customer, or third party such as an outside vendor visiting your workplace.
In this blog, Matt explains what “indirect” sexual harassment is, why it’s illegal in California, and how employees can take action without putting their jobs at risk.
Introduction
I have been litigating sexual harassment cases for over 30 years, and I understand what can happen to someone who’s experiencing sexual harassment at work. I’ve taken on companies large and small, from corporations to nonprofits, and I’ve helped clients recover what they deserve.
One thing I’ve seen time and again is that many employees don’t realize that sexual harassment isn’t always direct. It’s not always a manager cornering you, a coworker making lewd comments, or a supervisor asking for sexual favors. Sometimes, harassment happens in less obvious ways—when an employer looks the other way while a toxic culture takes hold, when they allow a coworker’s behavior to spiral out of control, or when they tolerate harassment by clients or customers. This is what the law calls indirect sexual harassment, and it’s just as illegal in California as the blatant stuff.
I’ve Represented Women Across Every Industry And This Sexual Harassment Story Is Familiar
Recently, a case out of California made it crystal clear: indirect harassment is still harassment, and employers who ignore it do so at their own peril.
Take the case of Police Captain Lillian Carranza. A fake nude photo of her started circulating in the workplace. She did exactly what any professional should do. She reported it and asked her superiors to intervene. The employer refused. So, Captain Carranza hired a lawyer.
The result? A $4 million jury verdict.
Carranza v. City of Los Angeles: A Court Decision About Indirect Sexual Harassment
Carranza v. City of Los Angeles is a California appellate court decision issued in 2025. The case centers on a high-ranking female LAPD officer who sued the City for sexual harassment after a topless photo—of a woman who resembled her, but wasn’t her—was passed around by officers, often during work hours, with lewd comments about her body.
Lillian Carranza wasn’t in the photo. She wasn’t in the room when it was shown. But it didn’t matter. The court held that under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the conduct was still harassment and the City’s failure to act made them liable for damages.
The Indirect Harassment Incident
In November 2018, Captain Lillian Carranza, one of the highest-ranking officers in the Los Angeles Police Department, was on vacation when she got a call from her attorney. A nude photo of a woman who looked like her was being circulated among LAPD officers. The image wasn’t her, but the resemblance was close enough to cause widespread gossip, humiliation, and sexualized speculation. Officers were passing the photo around while on duty, during shifts, in hallways, and even at the Staples Center during an overtime assignment. They laughed, whispered, and made degrading remarks behind her back.
Here’s the critical part: none of this harassment happened directly in Carranza’s presence. No one showed her the photo to her face. No one said the comments directly to her. It was all happening behind her back, in the shadows of the workplace. Yet the impact was devastating. A detective in her division told her that the photo was being discussed across the city and that officers were treating it like a joke. Carranza returned from her vacation, cut it short, and immediately filed a formal complaint, asking the LAPD to send out a message clarifying the photo wasn’t her and to tell officers to stop sharing it. She also asked them to investigate the source.
LAPD leadership refused. The Chief of Police claimed that acknowledging the photo would only cause “more embarrassment.” The City did nothing to stop the behavior, did nothing to clear Carranza’s name, and did nothing to hold anyone accountable.
The City’s Inaction to Indirect Sexual Harassment
LAPD’s own internal investigation confirmed the photo had been shared widely and that it was intended to depict Carranza. Officers admitted seeing the image. They admitted sharing it. They refused to turn over their phones. Yet no one was disciplined. Despite the Department’s findings that the circulation of the photo violated sexual harassment policies, the leadership simply let it go.
Meanwhile, Carranza suffered deeply. She developed panic attacks, depression, and anxiety. Her blood pressure skyrocketed. She was hospitalized on Christmas Eve with chest pains. At work, she felt scrutinized and ostracized. Officers would look down at their phones when she entered the room. They’d fall silent. Male officers stared at her in elevators with smirks that left her feeling exposed and objectified. Her workplace had turned into a hostile environment—one where she couldn’t lead effectively, couldn’t do her job without fear, and couldn’t escape the shadow of the circulating photo.
How this Case of Indirect Harassment Was Resolved
Carranza didn’t accept silence as an answer. She hired a veteran trial attorney with a track record of taking on discrimination and harassment cases. They filed a lawsuit under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), arguing that Carranza had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.
At trial, Carranza’s legal team made a critical point: this was a textbook case of indirect harassment. No one confronted her directly, but the circulation of the photo, the comments made behind her back, and the failure of LAPD leadership to stop it created an environment that was humiliating, isolating, and hostile. Carranza knew the harassment was happening. She had credible reports from her subordinates. She felt it in the way officers treated her. That knowledge alone, the awareness that dozens, maybe hundreds, of officers were passing around a degrading photo, making comments, and laughing at her expense was enough to create a hostile work environment under California law.
The jury agreed. They awarded Carranza $4 million in damages: $1.5 million for past emotional harm and $2.5 million for future harm. The City of Los Angeles appealed, arguing that because Carranza hadn’t been harassed directly, the conduct didn’t meet the legal standard for harassment. The Court of Appeal flatly rejected that argument, affirming the full verdict and ordering the City to pay Carranza’s legal fees totaling over $600,000.
This case sends an unmistakable message: Indirect harassment is still illegal harassment. If you know about it, if your workplace is poisoned by it, and your employer does nothing to stop it, they are liable under California law. That’s exactly what happened here, and the law held them accountable.
If you’re dealing with sexual harassment at work, deciding whether to file a lawsuit while still employed is a critical decision. Please read my blog, “Should I File a Sexual Harassment Lawsuit While Still Employed?” to learn how to protect your rights without jeopardizing your career.
Key Takeaways for California Employees
Takeaway #1: You Don’t Have to Witness the Harassment for It to Be Real
The law doesn’t require that someone harass you to your face. If coworkers are degrading you behind your back and management does nothing, that can still be illegal harassment.
Takeaway #2: If You’re Silent About Indirect Sexual Harassment, the Harassment Spreads
LAPD’s refusal to send a department-wide message let the image circulate unchecked. That silence spoke volumes—and the court took it seriously. Employers must take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
Takeaway #3: How Indirect Sexual Harassment Affects Your Health Matters
Carranza had panic attacks, sleepless nights, and was hospitalized on Christmas Eve. The jury and the court both recognized that this emotional toll matters under the law.
Takeaway #4: Hiring a Lawyer May Be Necessary to Fight Indirect Sexual Harassment
Carranza didn’t win this case by filing an internal report. She won it by getting legal representation, putting the facts in front of a jury, and refusing to back down.
Final Thoughts About Indirect Sexual Harassment from Matt Ruggles
You don’t have to be groped to be harassed. You don’t have to smile and take it. If your name, your body, or your dignity becomes a punchline at work, and your employer won’t shut it down, you have rights.
The Carranza case proves that even powerful institutions can be held accountable when they enable a toxic workplace. If this sounds familiar, call me. We’ve been through this before. And we know how to win.
If you’re facing sexual harassment at work, knowing how to respond is critical for protecting your rights—read my blog, “How Should I Respond to Sexual Harassment?,” to learn what steps you can take.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to Evaluate Your Potential Lawsuit
Matt Ruggles has a thorough understanding of California employment laws and decades of practical experience litigating employment law claims in California state and federal courts. Using all of his knowledge and experience, Matt and his team can quickly evaluate your potential claim and give you realistic advice on what you can expect if you sue your former employer.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.
