Bakersfield Recovery Service, Inc. (BRS) provides substance abuse treatment to recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2019, Plaintiff Steven Kruitbosch began working as an assistant corporate compliance officer at BRS. His job responsibilities required him to oversee client services, ensure all staff properly documented services, that staff were providing clients with evidence-based services, ensure facilities were operational and properly maintained, and ensure BRS adhered to contractual obligations.
Plaintiff Kruitbosch also trained all staff on various aspects of their jobs. Near the end of his employment, he was tasked with overseeing construction of a new facility that BRS was designing for clients. At various times during his employment, Kruitbosch attended sexual harassment trainings that made clear even sexual harassment off the clock was a violation of BRS policy.
Many of BRS’s employees, including plaintiff, are recovering addicts, and most employees, including co-worker Lisa Sanders, knew plaintiff was sober after having struggled with drug addiction. Plaintiff and other employees were open about their addiction recovery as part of their work with BRS.
In October 2022, plaintiff’s long-time partner passed away. In dealing with the grief of that loss, plaintiff took leave under the California Family Rights Act beginning February 1, 2023, and was scheduled to return to work on March 7, 2023.
In the week leading up to plaintiff’s return to work, Lisa Sanders began sending plaintiff multiple unsolicited nude pictures and stating she wanted to have sex with him; plaintiff firmly rejected these advances. On March 3, 2023, Sanders went to plaintiff’s home uninvited and brought a friend. Sanders indicated to plaintiff she was there to have sex with him; plaintiff instructed the women to leave him alone and to stop harassing him. Sanders again indicated she wanted to have sex with plaintiff. Sanders eventually departed plaintiff’s property,
On March 7, 2023, plaintiff returned to work and immediately complained to the acting program director Stephanie Carroll about Sanders’s conduct. HR representative Kimberly Giles was also made aware that Sanders had sent plaintiff nude photos, propositioned him for sex, offered him drugs, and presented herself at his house. Carroll informed plaintiff that there was not much she could do about Sanders’s behavior ostensibly because it occurred off the worksite.
Later that day, Giles posted a video on social media depicting whining dogs and stated, “‘This is a work day at thr [sic] office … lmbo.’” (Italics omitted.) Later in the week, Giles sarcastically commented to plaintiff, “‘I hope you don’t get no more pictures.’” At no point did either Carroll or Giles take any steps to separate plaintiff from Sanders or prevent future harassment; nor did BRS take any disciplinary action as to Sanders.
Although Kruitbosch made efforts to avoid Sanders in the office, his distress at the prospect of interacting with her coupled with BRS’s failure to protect him in the workplace and mocking him for his complaint detracted from his work duties and made continuing his employment feel impossible. Plaintiff resigned a week later.
Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (SAC) in October 2023 alleging nine claims against BRS, and a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sanders only: (1) hostile work environment sexual harassment in Violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (j)); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (a)); (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (h)); (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in violation of FEHA (§ 12940(k)); (5) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) constructive termination in violation of public policy; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against Sanders only); (8) negligent hiring, supervising, or retention; (9) failure to timely produce personnel records; and (10) failure to timely produce payroll records. BRS demurred as to all claims, except as to claims 9 and 10.
The trial court sustained BRS’s demurrer without leave to amend. Following the trial court’s ruling, plaintiff dismissed his two remaining claims for failure to timely produce records and appealed with respect to BRS. The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part in the partially published case of Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. -F087809 (September 2025).
Only the Introduction, Factual Background, parts I. and V. of the Discussion, and the Disposition are certified for publication.
In the view of the Court of Appeal “although Sanders’s alleged conduct was reprehensible, it was not sufficiently work related within the ambit of FEHA, and it did not recur inside the workplace. Her underlying conduct is not imputable to BRS, and the claim is not cognizable on that basis.”
“Nevertheless, the sexual harassment hostile work environment claim is viable based on a theory that BRS’s response to plaintiff’s complaint about Sanders’s conduct altered plaintiff’s work environment in an objectively severe manner. Plaintiff’s claim for failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation under section 12940, subdivision (k) (§ 12940(k)) is dependent upon a viable claim for harassment, discrimination or retaliation; because plaintiff’s underlying claim for sexual harassment is viable, plaintiff’s section 12940(k) claim is also cognizable. With respect to these claims, we reverse the trial court’s ruling sustaining BRS’s demurrer.”
“As for the remaining claims, plaintiff did not sufficiently allege constructive termination or any other adverse employment actions necessary to support his claims for discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Finally, plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention does not sufficiently allege BRS’s knowledge of the unfitness of its employees. With respect to these claims, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.”
“For purposes of clarity, plaintiff shall amend the complaint to present his allegations under the theory of hostile work environment sexual harassment, consistent with this opinion, that we have found viable. Plaintiff’s amendment may include additional allegations regarding the imputability of Carroll’s and Giles’s actions to BRS under the relevant standard.”