When a California employment plaintiff names a supervisor individually on a discrimination, retaliation, failure-to-prevent or wrongful termination theory, the court dismissed that supervisor in 5 of 5 claims we found. Harassment claims against a supervisor turned on a single question: was the alleged conduct the supervisor doing the job?
We read 13 claims in 12 California superior court rulings on demurrers and summary judgment motions. All of them came from rulings that cite Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640 on individual liability. With 13 claims, these are patterns, not rates.
FEHA makes harassment the one theory that reaches the individual. Under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(3), an employee "is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee."
What decides it
Non-harassment claims against the supervisor (5 of 13 claims). The plaintiff pressed discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent, or wrongful termination against an individually named supervisor. The court dismissed that defendant in all 5, on demurrer or summary judgment, citing Reno v. Baird, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, and Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55. In Sanders v. California Department of Transportation (Orange County Superior Court, 2026-07-20), the court stated the rule: "Individual supervisory employees are not personally liable for employment discrimination or retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act."
Harassment claims built on personnel management (4 of 5 harassment claims failed). The alleged conduct was the supervisor managing: removing duties, demanding documentation, enforcing rules, scheduling. The courts applied the Reno and Janken test, which asks whether the conduct was outside necessary job performance and done for personal gratification. Personnel-management actions failed that test in all 4.
Complaints already limited to harassment (2 of 13 claims). In 2 claims, the plaintiff had pleaded harassment against the individual and nothing else. The court called the individual-liability argument a non-issue.
The exception: one harassment claim survived (1 of 5)
One harassment claim against an individual supervisor survived. In Johnson-Blair v. Greer (Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. C24-02540, 2026-01-09), the plaintiff alleged that her supervisor "made several sexual innuendo comments and discussed other women's bodies with Plaintiff." The court held: "These actions by Plaintiff's supervisor are sufficient to show severe conduct and thus, Plaintiff has alleged facts showing sexual harassment. The demurrer to the harassment claim is overruled." Comments like these are not a personnel-management act, so they were outside the Reno and Janken bar.
What to do
If you represent the employee. Before you name a supervisor, sort each alleged act into one of two groups. Group one is personnel management: assigning work, enforcing rules, scheduling, documentation demands, termination decisions. Group two is conduct outside necessary job performance, done for personal gratification. Only group two supported a claim against the supervisor personally in these rulings. Plead harassment against the individual and nothing else, as the 2 complaints in the third group did. Name only the supervisor who took part: under Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, a supervisor who only fails to stop someone else's harassment is not personally liable, and is liable only if the supervisor "participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment."
Section 1102.5 does not change this. Federal district courts applying California law, including Crone v. Tracy Unified School District (E.D. Cal. 2020) and Rosas v. NFI Industries (E.D. Cal. 2021), have held that section 1102.5 does not impose personal liability on individual supervisors. Rosas traces that conclusion to the same reasoning the California Supreme Court used in Reno v. Baird and Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines to bar individual liability under FEHA; Crone reaches the same result independently, from the statute's 2014 amendment history and other federal decisions construing it.
If you represent the supervisor. Check each claim against your client. A non-harassment theory lost in 5 of 5 claims. A harassment claim built only on personnel actions lost in 4 of 5.
Method and N: 13 claims in 12 California superior court rulings on demurrers and summary judgment motions, dated January to August 2026, from Contra Costa, Orange, Santa Clara, Los Angeles and San Mateo counties. The rulings were drawn from those citing Reno v. Baird on individual liability; duplicate captures of the same ruling were removed. One of the 13 claims is not coded into the groups above. Counts as of 2026-10-05. These are trial-court tentative rulings, and they are not precedent. Nothing here is legal advice.