## Facts

- Debbra J. Accardi worked as a police officer for the City of Simi Valley for about 11 years.
- She alleged that throughout her employment she was subjected to sex discrimination and sexual harassment by male officers and supervisors.
- The alleged misconduct included hostile and discriminatory treatment based on sex, not limited to overtly sexual acts or advances.
- On October 11, 1991, Accardi filed discrimination complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
- On October 17, 1991, she received a DFEH right-to-sue letter.
- On March 13, 1992, she filed a civil action alleging (among other claims) sexual harassment under FEHA, constructive discharge, intentional interference with business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Defendants demurred, arguing FEHA limitations barred the harassment claim and workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the harassment and IIED claims.
- The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to sexual harassment and IIED, and Accardi sought writ relief.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of sex-based hostility without overt sexual conduct can state a FEHA sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim.
2. Whether a FEHA harassment claim is timely when the alleged harassment is continuous and at least one act occurred within the limitations period for filing a DFEH complaint.
3. Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity preempts an IIED claim based on alleged sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held that sexual harassment under FEHA can consist of conduct that discriminates because of sex, even if it is not overtly sexual.
- The court held a harassment claim is not time-barred where there is a continuous course of discriminatory acts and some acts fall within the limitations period.
- The court held IIED damages arising from sexual harassment are not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- The court directed the superior court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as to sexual harassment and IIED and to enter a new order allowing those claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Sexual harassment under FEHA is not limited to sexual propositions or explicit sexual conduct; it includes sex-based conduct that creates a hostile work environment.
- A hostile work environment exists when an employer creates or permits workplace conditions that are hostile to an employee because of the employee’s sex.
- A continuing course of discriminatory harassment may be actionable as a whole if at least one related act occurred within the statutory period for filing an administrative charge.
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity does not preempt civil emotional distress claims where the injury is alleged to arise from intentional sex discrimination or sexual harassment rather than ordinary workplace risks.

## Conclusion

The court required the trial court to permit Accardi’s FEHA sexual harassment and related IIED claims to go forward, holding that sex-based hostile environment harassment need not be overtly sexual, a continuous pattern can be timely if some acts are within the limitations period, and workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar emotional distress claims arising from sexual harassment.


Accardi v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. App. 4th 341, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 292 (Ct. App. 1993)