How much does one work really matter?
In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, the California Supreme Court made a powerful statement: a single racial epithet can be enough to create a hostile work environment under California law. This ruling challenges long-standing beliefs that workplace harassment must be frequent or ongoing to be legally actionable.
This case is more than just a legal precedent, it’s a wake-up call for employers, HR departments, and employees alike. It forces a difficult but necessary conversation: How much harm does one incident cause? And what should workplaces do about it?
The Case That Set The Standard
Twanda Bailey, an African-American employee in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, was called a racial slur by a coworker. When she reported the incident, she faced roadblocks, intimidation, and what she claimed was retaliation.
Lower courts dismissed her case, ruling that a single racial slur was not enough to meet California’s legal standard for a hostile work environment. Historically, courts have required harassment to be severe or pervasive, meaning frequent or extreme.
But the California Supreme Court saw it differently. In a landmark ruling, the Court reversed the lower court’s decision, affirming that even one racial slur, if severe enough, can create a legally actionable hostile work environment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Why This Case Matters
For decades, workplace harassment claims faced a high bar: proving a pattern of misconduct. This ruling changes the game. Now, employees do not need to endure repeated racial harassment before having a case.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
- One instance of severe harassment is enough
- If the conduct is severe, it does not have to be repeated to be unlawful.
- Racial slurs, particularly historically offensive ones, carry weight far beyond just words.
- Context matters
- Courts must view harassment from the perspective of a reasonable person in the employee’s position.
- Workplace culture, power dynamics, and historical context of certain language must be considered.
- Employer response is crucial
- The ruling also addressed Bailey’s retaliation claim, reinforcing that employers cannot obstruct harassment complaints or intimidate employees for speaking up.
What This Means for Employers
This ruling puts California employers on notice: Workplace harassment policies must be more than just words in an employee handbook.
- Zero Tolerance is No Longer Optional – Employers must take reports of even a single incident seriously.
- HR Needs to Act Swiftly and Decisively – Ignoring or downplaying complaints creates legal liability.
- Training Must Reflect the New Standard – Employees, managers, and HR staff need to be aware that a single incident can be enough for a lawsuit.
What This Means for Employees
For too long, many employees suffering from workplace harassment have been told: “It was just one time” or “Unless it happens again, there’s nothing we can do.”
That is no longer the case.
- If you experience a racial slur or severe harassment at work, you have rights.
- You do not have to endure a pattern of abuse before taking legal action.
- If an employer dismisses your complaint or retaliates against you, they can be held accountable.
The Bigger Picture: Shifting Workplace Culture
This ruling does more than clarify the legal standard—it forces workplaces to reconsider their tolerance for microaggressions, slurs, and so-called “one-off” incidents.
Workplaces that still believe, “It was just one word,” are now on the wrong side of the law.
Words matter.
One incident matters.
And now, legally, it matters enough to take action.
The question is: Will employers change their approach before they find themselves in court?
The blog published by Fairchild Employment Law is available for informational purposes only and is not considered legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing blog posts, the reader understands there is no attorney-client relationship between the reader and the blog publisher. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney, and readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel on any specific legal questions concerning a specific situation.