In Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 200, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's response to a complaint can independently create a hostile work environment, even if the underlying harassment was not work-related. The court found the coworker's off-site harassing conduct was not sufficiently work-related to be actionable under FEHA. However, it reversed the dismissal of the HWE claim, holding that the HR representative's mocking response to the plaintiff's complaint was a work-related event that could create a hostile environment, following Fuller v. Idaho Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 2017) 865 F.3d 1154.

This decision confirms that while employers may not have a duty to remedy purely private conduct, they have a separate duty not to create a hostile environment in their response to an employee's complaint about that conduct.

In Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 301, the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff cannot recover in tort for conduct that is inherently part of the termination process, such as an internal investigation report, if the alleged harm is the same as the harm from the termination itself. Reversing a defamation judgment, ruling that an independent tort claim requires proof of separate conduct and separate damages (e.g., reputational harm) not resulting solely from the job loss.

This decision strongly reinforces that plaintiffs cannot "plead around" wrongful termination law to recover tort damages without proving a truly independent wrong.

In Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 252, the Court of Appeal held that Uber was not vicariously liable for a driver's negligence when the driver was "offline" at the time of the accident. It rejected as speculative Plaintiff's argument that the driver (who struck a pedestrian four minutes after logging off) was still in the scope of employment because he merely intended to log back on later.

This decision strongly reinforces that the app's "online" status is the dispositive, bright-line test for vicarious liability, shielding rideshare companies from liability for a driver's conduct during offline periods, irrespective of the driver's intent to work later.

In Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 285, the Court of Appeal held that lost stock options are not "wages" under the Labor Code, thus barring related tort claims. However, for the surviving breach of contract claim, the court held that damages for lost options may be measured based on "equitable considerations," not just the strict date of breach.

This decision forecloses statutory wage and tort claims for lost options but provides a crucial "equitable" path for plaintiffs to argue for a more favorable valuation date in volatile markets.