Los Angeles Workplace Sexual Abuse Attorney

AB 2777, codified at California Code of Civil Procedure §340.16, created a limited revival window allowing adult survivors of sexual assault — including workplace assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2009 — to file civil claims even if the original statute of limitations had already expired. This window closes permanently on December 31, 2026, after which previously time-barred claims cannot be revived. San Francisco survivors whose claims were dismissed or never filed due to expired deadlines should consult an attorney immediately, as this is a one-time legislative opportunity.

Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code §12940), employees must file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department (CRD) within three years of the last act of harassment or abuse. After the CRD issues a right-to-sue notice, claimants have one year to file in San Francisco Superior Court at 400 McAllister Street. Federal Title VII claims carry a shorter 300-day deadline to file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, so preserving both timelines from the outset is critical.

California plaintiffs in workplace sexual abuse cases can recover economic damages including lost wages, future earning capacity, and medical and psychiatric treatment costs. Non-economic damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life are also recoverable without a statutory cap under FEHA. Unlike federal Title VII claims, which cap combined non-economic and punitive damages at $300,000 for larger employers, FEHA imposes no such limit, making California law significantly more favorable for San Francisco survivors.

Under Government Code §12940(j), California employers are strictly liable for sexual harassment and abuse committed by supervisors, meaning the employer cannot escape liability even if it was unaware of the conduct. For co-worker or third-party perpetrators, employers are liable if they knew or should have known about the abuse and failed to take immediate corrective action. San Francisco employers who ignored internal HR complaints, failed to investigate, or enabled a known abuser face direct liability under both FEHA and California common law negligent supervision claims.

Yes — Government Code §12940(h) expressly prohibits employers from retaliating against any employee who opposes sexual harassment, files a complaint with the CRD or EEOC, or participates in an investigation or proceeding under FEHA. Retaliatory acts including termination, demotion, schedule changes, or hostile treatment after reporting abuse constitute independent FEHA violations with their own damages claims. San Francisco workers should document all adverse employment actions with timestamps and preserve all communications with HR, supervisors, and management after making a report.

Filing with the Civil Rights Department (formerly the DFEH) is an administrative prerequisite under FEHA — claimants must exhaust this administrative remedy before filing a civil lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court. The CRD investigates the complaint and may attempt mediation; if unresolved, it issues a right-to-sue notice that triggers the one-year window to file in court. Alternatively, claimants can request an immediate right-to-sue notice from the CRD without awaiting a full investigation, allowing faster access to San Francisco Superior Court while preserving all FEHA claims.

AB 218, which amended Code of Civil Procedure §340.1, extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, giving survivors until age 40 — or five years from the date they discover the psychological injury was caused by the abuse, whichever is later — to file civil claims. The law also opened a three-year revival window from 2020 through 2022 for previously time-barred claims and eliminated the prior requirement to file a government claim when a public entity is a defendant. San Francisco survivors abused at work as minors — including interns, minor employees, or students in school-sponsored work programs — may have claims against employers, institutions, and individual perpetrators under this statute.

Yes — employer liability under FEHA and California common law does not depend on the perpetrator’s current employment status. An employer can be held liable for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and negligent retention if it knew or should have known the employee posed a risk of sexual abuse before or during employment. San Francisco courts, applying the respondeat superior doctrine, have also found employer liability where abuse occurred within the scope of employment, even after the abuser’s departure, provided the conduct arose out of employment-related authority or duties.

Survivors should immediately preserve text messages, emails, voicemails, social media messages, and any written communications from the perpetrator or witnesses, as well as any photographs or surveillance footage where legally obtainable. Medical records, psychiatric evaluations, and documentation of physical injuries should be obtained as soon as possible, since contemporaneous medical evidence is among the most compelling proof in civil litigation. All internal complaints to HR, management, or supervisors — and any responses received — should be saved and if possible reported to the San Francisco Police Department, as a police report creates an independent official record that supports civil claims.

The vast majority of California civil sexual abuse cases resolve through settlement before trial, with San Francisco Superior Court statistics reflecting that fewer than five percent of civil cases proceed to a jury verdict. However, retaining an attorney who is prepared and capable of litigating through trial in San Francisco Superior Court is critical leverage in settlement negotiations, as defendants assess litigation risk based on opposing counsel’s trial record. Cases involving institutional defendants — hospitals, schools, staffing agencies, or large corporations operating in San Francisco — frequently involve pre-trial mediation before a JAMS or AAA neutral before any courtroom appearance.

FEHA (Government Code §12940 et seq.) covers California employers with five or more employees, while federal Title VII applies to employers with fifteen or more employees — meaning FEHA protects a broader class of San Francisco workers. FEHA does not cap compensatory or punitive damages, whereas Title VII caps combined non-economic and punitive damages at $300,000 for employers with 500 or more employees. San Francisco attorneys typically pursue claims under both statutes simultaneously, preserving all available remedies and giving plaintiffs access to both the CRD and EEOC administrative processes.

The December 31, 2026 deadline under CCP §340.16 (AB 2777, the STOP Act) applies to adult survivors of sexual assault — defined broadly to include sexual battery, rape, and related offenses — where the assault occurred on or after January 1, 2009, or where a defendant or related entity engaged in a cover-up of the abuse after that date. After December 31, 2026, the revival window closes permanently and previously expired claims cannot be revived under this statute regardless of any new facts or disclosures. San Francisco survivors who believe their claims are time-barred should obtain a legal evaluation before this deadline, as even cases involving institutional defendants or well-resourced employers may be viable if filed before the cutoff.

Contact an attorney as soon as safely possible after the incident — FEHA’s three-year clock begins running from the last act of abuse, and the December 31, 2026 AB 2777 revival window is a fixed legislative deadline that cannot be tolled. Early legal counsel ensures that evidence is preserved through formal litigation holds, that internal investigations do not compromise your claims, and that you do not make statements to HR or insurance adjusters that could be used against you. An attorney can also file a CRD complaint on your behalf to toll certain deadlines while a full case investigation is conducted.

Yes — San Francisco’s Police Code Article 33 (the City’s Human Rights Ordinance) provides additional protections against harassment and discrimination in workplaces operating within San Francisco County, and the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) enforces local worker protection laws including paid sick leave provisions that allow survivors to take time off for medical and legal appointments. San Francisco’s Living Wage Ordinance and local contractor requirements can also expose city-funded employers to additional liability and administrative sanctions for civil rights violations. Survivors employed by San Francisco city agencies or contractors may also have claims under the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code §900 et seq.), which requires a government claim to be filed within six months of the incident.

Under Government Code §12940(j), FEHA imposes a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace sexual harassment and abuse by co-workers, supervisors, managers, and non-employees — including independent contractors, vendors, clients, and staffing agency workers. Individual supervisors can face personal liability for harassment under FEHA, and third-party contractors who directly committed abuse can be sued individually under California Civil Code §1708.5 (sexual battery) and related common law torts. San Francisco plaintiffs frequently name both the employing entity and the individual perpetrator as defendants, maximizing available insurance coverage and recovery while holding all responsible parties accountable.