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 at work, and you may be wondering whether California law protects you. Below, we explain how state law defines abusive conduct, when workplace mistreatment may become unlawful, and what options may be available to employees who experience it.
Is abusive conduct illegal in California?
Not necessarily. California law defines “abusive conduct” and requires certain employers to include its prevention in mandatory workplace harassment training. However, abusive conduct or workplace bullying is not automatically unlawful on its own. Depending on the circumstances, the same conduct may violate other California laws. For example, workplace mistreatment may constitute unlawful harassment if it is based on a protected characteristic, retaliation if it follows certain legally protected activity, or implicate workplace safety laws if it involves threats or violence.
Legally Reviewed By:
Associate Attorney
Danielle Langella is an Associate Attorney at Abramson Labor Group, where she helps California employees stand up for their rights at work. Before joining ALG, Danielle worked at Good American as a Marketing Coordinator and Assistant to the Brand Director,…
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 workplace conduct by an employer or employee, undertaken with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the employer’s legitimate business interests. The definition appears in Government Code section 12950.1. The Legislature added it in 2014 through AB 2053.
Three elements are central to the statutory definition:
Examples of abusive conduct identified by California law include:
A single act generally does not constitute abusive conduct under this definition unless the act is especially severe and egregious.
Not necessarily. Government Code section 12950.1 requires certain employers to provide training on the prevention of abusive conduct, but it does not create a standalone claim for workplace bullying. However, the circumstances surrounding the conduct may implicate other employment laws, including laws prohibiting harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or workplace violence.
Under Government Code section 12950.1, employers with five or more employees generally must provide at least two hours of harassment-prevention training to supervisory employees and at least one hour to nonsupervisory employees in California. The training generally must be provided every two years and must include prevention of abusive conduct. Specific timing requirements apply to newly hired and newly promoted employees.
Failure to comply with the training requirements may result in the Civil Rights Department seeking an order requiring the employer to comply. Completing the required training also does not, by itself, shield an employer from liability for unlawful harassment.
Abusive conduct becomes illegal when it is connected to legally protected conduct or characteristics. For example, workplace mistreatment may constitute unlawful harassment when it is based on a protected characteristic such as race, sex, age, disability, or religion. Retaliation and workplace safety laws may also apply depending on the circumstances.
Government Code section 12940(j) prohibits workplace harassment based on protected characteristics, including race, religious creed, national origin, disability, medical condition, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and others. For purposes of FEHA’s harassment provisions, an employer generally includes a person regularly employing one or more people.
Employer liability can depend on who engaged in the harassment. When harassment is committed by a nonsupervisory employee, an employer may be liable if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Different rules apply to harassment by supervisors. An individual employee may also be personally liable for harassment prohibited by FEHA.
Harassment does not always have to occur repeatedly to support a hostile work environment claim. California law recognizes that a single incident may be sufficiently severe depending on the circumstances. Courts consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive.
In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, the California Supreme Court held that a coworker’s one-time use of an unambiguous racial epithet could be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim. The Court also held that the alleged conduct of an HR manager in obstructing the employee’s complaint and threatening her could support a retaliation claim.
Government Code section 12940(h) prohibits retaliation against a person for opposing practices prohibited by FEHA or for filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in a proceeding under FEHA. For example, adverse employment action following a complaint about suspected discrimination or harassment may raise retaliation concerns depending on the circumstances.
Not every workplace complaint is protected by FEHA. A complaint about general workplace conflict or bullying, without a connection to conduct prohibited by FEHA, may not fall within FEHA’s retaliation protections. Other retaliation laws may apply depending on what the employee reported. A lawyer can help you frame it early, without delaying the report itself.
Labor Code section 6401.9 generally requires covered California employers to establish, implement, and maintain a written workplace violence prevention plan. The law addresses acts or threats of violence occurring in a place of employment, including workplace violence committed against an employee by a current or former employee, supervisor, or manager.
An employer’s workplace violence prevention plan must include procedures for employees to report workplace violence, threats, and other concerns, and it must prohibit retaliation against employees who make those reports. Separate California laws, including Labor Code section 6310, also protect employees from retaliation for certain workplace safety complaints and activities.
California law also allows an employer, in certain circumstances, to seek a workplace restraining order on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. Since January 1, 2025, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 has included harassment within the conduct that may support such an order. Specific procedural requirements apply, including requirements concerning whether the affected employee is named in the order.
In some circumstances, working conditions may become so intolerable that an employee feels compelled to resign. Under Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, a resignation may be treated as a constructive discharge when an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits working conditions that are so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign. Our article on constructive discharge in California explains the rule in more detail.
Constructive discharge does not, by itself, establish a wrongful termination claim. The employee must still establish an underlying legal basis for holding the employer liable for the termination. Whether working conditions are sufficiently intolerable to constitute constructive discharge depends on the circumstances.
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 | Generally yes | Not required |
| What the law addresses | Certain employers must include prevention of abusive conduct in required harassment-prevention training | Prohibits workplace harassment based on characteristics protected by FEHA | Covered employers must maintain a workplace violence prevention plan and provide required training |
| Can it support a claim? | Abusive conduct alone is not a standalone FEHA claim, although the surrounding conduct may implicate other laws | Potentially, if the requirements for a FEHA harassment claim are met | Cal/OSHA enforces workplace violence prevention requirements; retaliation or other related conduct may implicate additional laws |
| Example | A manager who repeatedly and maliciously humiliates or undermines employees without a legitimate business purpose | A supervisor who repeatedly mocks employees because of their age | Someone at work who threatens an employee with physical violence |
Want a broader look at this distinction? Read our comparison of workplace harassment versus bullying in California.
The examples below illustrate how different facts can affect whether workplace mistreatment may implicate California law. Actual cases depend on the surrounding circumstances.
| Situation | How the law likely views it |
|---|---|
| A manager repeatedly yells at and humiliates the entire team during deadlines. | The conduct may fall within California’s definition of abusive conduct depending on factors such as its severity, whether it is undertaken with malice, and whether it is related to legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct alone does not necessarily create a legal claim. |
| A supervisor repeatedly calls employees over 40 “dinosaurs” and mocks them because of their age. | The conduct may constitute age-based harassment under FEHA. |
| A coworker directs a severe racial epithet at you on one occasion. | A single incident may be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim depending on the circumstances. The California Supreme Court addressed this issue in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. |
| You report age-based insults to HR, and your hours drop the following week. | The circumstances may raise concerns about retaliation under FEHA, depending on the reason for the reduction and other facts. |
| A supervisor slams a fist on your desk and says you will “regret it.” | The conduct may constitute a threat of workplace violence and implicate the employer’s workplace violence prevention procedures. |
| Your manager gives you a critical but legitimate performance review based on your work. | Legitimate performance management does not become abusive conduct merely because the feedback is critical or unpleasant. |
If your situation does not fit neatly into one of these examples, an employment attorney can evaluate the specific facts and explain which California employment laws may apply.
If you experience abusive conduct at work, these steps may help you document what happened, understand your employer’s reporting procedures, and preserve information that could become relevant later.
Different employment claims can have different filing deadlines. For many California harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employee generally has three years from the date they were last harmed to begin the filing process with the California Civil Rights Department.
That three-year period does not apply to every employment claim. Claims involving workplace safety, wages, whistleblower retaliation, breach of contract, or other employment laws may have different deadlines. The applicable deadline can also depend on the specific facts and legal claims involved.
Because filing deadlines vary, employees who believe workplace conduct may have violated their rights should consider speaking with an employment attorney as early as possible.
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.
If you are experiencing repeated mistreatment at work, retaliation after making a complaint, harassment that may be connected to a protected characteristic, or threats or intimidation, consider speaking with a California employment lawyer. You may also want legal advice if the working conditions have become so difficult that you are considering resigning.
An employment lawyer can review the circumstances, determine which California employment laws may apply, and explain the options available based on your situation. Because different employment claims have different filing deadlines, getting advice early can also help you understand the time limits that may apply.
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.
Workplace bullying or abusive conduct does not automatically create a standalone legal claim in California. However, the conduct may violate California law if, for example, it constitutes harassment based on a protected characteristic, retaliation for legally protected activity, or involves threats or workplace violence.
Whether you may have a claim depends on the specific conduct, why it occurred, and the circumstances surrounding it.
Generally, no. Under Government Code section 12950.1, a single act generally does not constitute abusive conduct unless it is especially severe and egregious. However, this is different from the standard for unlawful harassment under FEHA. Depending on the circumstances, a single incident of harassment based on a protected characteristic may be sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment claim.
In some circumstances, yes. California law allows an employer to seek a workplace restraining order on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence. Whether a restraining order is available depends on the conduct and the circumstances involved.
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!
Prefer to talk? (213) 493-6300
1700 W Burbank Blvd, Burbank, CA 91506