Table of Contents
A supervisor screams at you in front of the team. A coworker mocks you every day or quietly sabotages your work. If this sounds familiar, you may be facing abusive conduct in California, and you probably want to know whether the law protects you. Below, we explain how state law defines abusive conduct, when it becomes illegal, and which steps protect your rights.
Is abusive conduct illegal in California?
Sometimes. California defines abusive conduct in Government Code section 12950.1, a law that requires employers to train employees to prevent it. Abusive conduct becomes illegal when it targets a protected characteristic, punishes you for a protected complaint, or involves threats or violence.
Abusive conduct in California can take many forms. This article may apply to you if any of these sound familiar:
California law defines abusive conduct as conduct by an employer or employee in the workplace, done with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the employer’s legitimate business interests. The definition sits in Government Code section 12950.1(h)(2). The Legislature added it in 2014 through AB 2053.
Three qualities make conduct abusive under the statute:
The statute also lists examples of abusive conduct:
One detail matters a lot. Under the statute, a single act is not abusive conduct unless it is especially severe and egregious. In practice, abusive conduct in California usually means a pattern, not one bad day.
Not on its own, but that is not the end of the question. Section 12950.1 is a training law. It tells employers to teach their workforce how to prevent abusive conduct, but it does not create a separate claim for bullying alone. What matters is what surrounds the abuse: who it targets, why it happens, and how your employer responds. Those facts decide whether you have a case, and they are easy to overlook when you are the one being mistreated.
The training rule works like this. Under section 12950.1(a), an employer with five or more employees must give supervisors at least two hours of harassment prevention training. Nonsupervisory employees in California must get at least one hour. Employers must repeat the training every two years, and new employees must receive it within six months. Prevention of abusive conduct must be part of it.
Still, the training rule carries weight. For example, if an employer skips the training, the Civil Rights Department (CRD) may seek an order requiring it to comply. The statute also states that following the training rule does not insulate an employer from liability for sexual harassment. In other words, a training certificate is not a defense by itself.
The required training is also growing. On September 27, 2026, Governor Newsom signed AB 1803, which adds anti-hate speech training to this same required program.
Abusive conduct becomes illegal when it connects to a right that California law protects. The most common link is a protected characteristic. If the abuse targets you because of your race, sex, age, disability, religion, or another protected trait, it can be harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Retaliation and threats of violence create other paths.
Government Code section 12940(j) makes it unlawful to harass an employee because of a protected characteristic. Protected traits include race, religion, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, and age, among others. For harassment claims, FEHA covers employers with one or more employees, so even a very small business can be responsible.
Responsibility depends on who does the harassing. Under section 12940(j)(1), when a coworker harasses you, the employer is liable if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Also, the individual harasser can be personally liable under section 12940(j)(3). Once the abuse becomes severe or pervasive, it can amount to what the law calls a hostile work environment.
Many workers assume harassment must happen over and over. However, Government Code section 12923 says a single incident can create a triable issue of a hostile work environment. The test is whether it unreasonably interfered with your work or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.
The California Supreme Court applied that principle in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611. There, a coworker used a racial slur against an employee one time. The Court held that one use of an unambiguous racial epithet could be severe enough to support a harassment claim, based on the totality of the circumstances. The Court also recognized that obstructing an employee’s attempt to report harassment can support a retaliation claim.
Section 12940(h) bars an employer from firing, expelling, or otherwise discriminating against someone for opposing practices FEHA forbids. It also protects you for filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in a FEHA proceeding. So if you report abuse you believe is tied to a protected trait, and your employer then cuts your hours or fires you, that can be illegal retaliation.
This protection has a limit. FEHA’s retaliation rule covers complaints about conduct FEHA forbids. A complaint about general bullying with no link to a protected trait may not trigger it on its own. For that reason, how you word your report matters. A lawyer can help you frame it early, without delaying the report itself.
Since July 1, 2024, Labor Code section 6401.9 has required most California employers to keep a written workplace violence prevention plan, according to Cal/OSHA’s fact sheet. The law defines workplace violence as any act of violence or threat of violence in a place of employment. It specifically covers violence against an employee by a present or former employee, supervisor, or manager.
Under SB 553, which created section 6401.9, your employer’s plan must explain how you can report a threat or violent incident without fear of reprisal. Separately, Labor Code section 6310 protects employees who make a good-faith complaint to their employer about unsafe working conditions. If your employer punished you after you raised a safety concern, see whether you can be fired for a safety complaint.
Restraining orders offer another tool. Since January 1, 2025, SB 428 has let an employer seek a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 for an employee who has suffered harassment, not only violence or credible threats. The employer must show clear and convincing evidence. Before filing, it must also give the employee a chance to decline to be named.
Finally, sometimes the treatment gets so bad that quitting feels like the only option. In Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, the California Supreme Court held that a resignation can count as a firing when the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit. That standard is demanding, so talk to a lawyer before you resign. Our article on constructive discharge in California explains the rule in more detail.
These three terms overlap. However, California law treats them differently. The table below compares them side by side.
| Abusive conduct | FEHA harassment | Workplace violence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main law | Gov. Code § 12950.1 | Gov. Code § 12940(j) | Labor Code § 6401.9 |
| Tied to a protected trait? | Not required | Required | Not required |
| What the law requires | Employers with 5+ employees include prevention in required training | Employers must not harass and must correct coworker harassment they know about | Most employers keep a written prevention plan and train staff on it |
| Can it support a claim? | Not by itself, but related facts may create one | Yes | Cal/OSHA enforces the plan rules; retaliation for reporting may support a claim |
| Example | A manager who berates the whole team | A supervisor who mocks only older workers | Someone at work who threatens to hurt you |
Want a broader look at this distinction? Read our comparison of workplace harassment versus bullying in California.
The examples below show how abusive conduct in California plays out under the rules above. Real situations rarely fit one row neatly, and a single added fact can move a case from one row to another.
| Situation | How the law likely views it |
|---|---|
| A manager yells at the whole team during every deadline. | May be abusive conduct. It is usually not illegal on its own, but facts like who else is targeted, or what happened after a complaint, can change that. |
| A supervisor calls only the workers over 40 “dinosaurs” and mocks them in meetings. | May be age-based harassment under FEHA. |
| A coworker directs a racial slur at you one time. | Can be severe enough for a harassment claim, as in Bailey. |
| You report the age-based insults to HR, and your hours drop the next week. | May be retaliation under FEHA. |
| A supervisor slams a fist on your desk and says you will “regret it.” | May be a threat of workplace violence under the employer’s plan. |
| Your manager gives you a harsh but accurate performance review. | Usually not abusive conduct, because it relates to a legitimate business interest. |
If your situation does not match a row, a free case review can tell you where it lands.
These steps protect your health, your job, and any future claim involving abusive conduct in California. Take them in order when you can, because early records are the hardest to rebuild later.
When abusive conduct in California crosses into FEHA harassment or retaliation, two deadlines control the claim. According to CRD’s employment page, you generally have three years from the last harmful act to file a complaint with CRD, a step CRD requires even if you plan to go to court. After CRD issues a right-to-sue notice, you have one year from the date of that notice to file a lawsuit, according to CRD’s right-to-sue instructions.
| Stage | General deadline |
|---|---|
| CRD complaint (required before a FEHA lawsuit) | Within 3 years of the last harmful act |
| Lawsuit | Within 1 year of the date on the right-to-sue notice |
Worked example: Say a supervisor’s last harassing comment about your national origin happened on October 15, 2026. The general CRD deadline would fall on October 15, 2029. However, the second deadline runs from the notice, not from the harassment, and CRD lets a claimant request an immediate right-to-sue notice at filing. If CRD issued a right-to-sue notice on November 2, 2026, the lawsuit window would generally close on November 2, 2027, nearly two years before the CRD date. Because the timing of each filing moves these dates, a misstep can end a claim. That is why it pays to have a lawyer handle these filings.
These are general rules, not your exact deadline. Other claims, like safety complaint retaliation, can follow different timelines. For more detail, see how long you have to file a wrongful termination claim in California.
Talk to a lawyer if the abuse is tied to a protected trait, if your employer punished you after you complained, or if someone threatened you. You should also get advice before you quit because of the treatment. A lawyer can assess whether your facts meet FEHA’s standards and help protect your deadlines. If you work in Los Angeles County, our Los Angeles employment lawyers can review harassment and retaliation cases like these.
Why employees choose Abramson Labor Group:
At Abramson Labor Group, we represent California employees facing abusive conduct, harassment, and retaliation at work. Our case reviews are free and confidential, and we work on contingency. Request your free case evaluation or call us at (213) 493-6300.
You may be able to, depending on the facts. California law does not make bullying alone a standalone claim, but bullying that targets a protected trait can be harassment under Government Code section 12940(j). Punishment after a protected complaint can be retaliation, and threats fall under workplace violence rules. A lawyer’s first job is to find out whether one of those connections exists.
Only if it is especially severe and egregious, under section 12950.1. Separately, Government Code section 12923 says a single incident of harassment tied to a protected trait can support a hostile work environment claim if it is serious enough.
Yes, in some cases. Since January 1, 2025, SB 428 has let an employer seek a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 for an employee who has suffered harassment. The employer must meet a clear and convincing evidence standard and must first offer you the chance to decline to be named.
This article is general information about California law, not legal advice. Every situation is different. For advice about your specific case, talk to a licensed California employment attorney.
Abramson Labor Group offers 100% risk free case evaluations. Fill out the form below or call us today!