Doe v. Wells Fargo: Supervising Other Workers Did Not Establish Authority Over the Plaintiff

A senior title and authority over other employees did not establish supervisory authority over the plaintiff in Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B344642 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2026). The published Second District, Division Four decision affirmed summary judgment for the bank on the arguments preserved in the appeal.

The court required a relationship between the alleged harasser’s authority and the person harassed for FEHA supervisor strict liability. It expressly recognized that qualifying authority can extend beyond an immediate supervisor or a formal reporting line. The employment relationship and the actual authority mattered more than the title.

The plaintiff conceded a missing supervisory relationship

Doe, a wealth advisor, alleged that an investment strategist and managing director, Pagel, sexually assaulted her in her hotel room during a business trip, after dinner and drinks. Pagel disputed her account. The appeal resolved employer-liability issues rather than making a trial finding about that disputed encounter.

Pagel had participated in interviewing Doe, held a senior role and provided performance input concerning other employees. But Doe and Pagel reported to the same superior. He could not hire or fire her, approve her time off or otherwise exercise supervisory authority over her. Doe conceded that he was not her supervisor.

Her legal position was that supervisory authority over anyone at Wells Fargo was enough to impose strict liability on the employer for his alleged harassment of her. The court assumed for its analysis, without deciding, that he supervised lower-level support staff and rejected that proposed rule.

California’s definition is broader than the federal rule

Government Code section 12926(t) includes authority to take listed employment actions, responsibly direct employees or effectively recommend those actions, where independent judgment is required. It therefore reaches beyond the federal Title VII definition discussed in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013).

The court nevertheless read the definition in the context of employer responsibility for harassment. Relying on State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 1040–1041 (2003), it connected strict liability to the employer-conferred authority that creates power over the victim. Treating every supervisor as a supervisor of every employee would sever that connection.

The opinion tested Doe’s reading against examples of people working in unrelated departments or locations. A power differential arising from seniority or prestige alone did not establish the supervisory relationship required by her theory. The statutory and contextual reasoning appears in Doe.

The rule reaches beyond an immediate reporting line

The court expressly limited its holding: A harasser need not be the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor or appear in the direct chain of command. A person who responsibly directs the plaintiff’s work using independent judgment may satisfy California’s definition.

That distinction prevents an organization chart from becoming the entire inquiry. An employee outside a formal reporting line may still control assignments or effectively recommend employment actions concerning the plaintiff. In this case, however, Doe conceded the missing authority rather than producing a factual dispute about it. The express discussion is in Doe.

The court also examined older FEHC decisions and out-of-state authorities offered by Doe. The FEHC decisions predated both the statutory supervisor definition and the later California Supreme Court framework. The court also distinguished the out-of-state cases because the alleged harassers there held authority over the plaintiffs. Those authorities did not establish Doe’s proposed employer-wide rule.

The negligence theory failed on the arguments preserved

Wells Fargo had also sought summary judgment on the ground that it took appropriate corrective action after learning of the allegations. The record described a February 2020 complaint to a coworker who did not escalate it; the bank did not investigate at that time. Reports to the hotline and Doe’s direct supervisor in November prompted an investigation. The bank ultimately issued a 28-page report and imposed a final notice for conduct violations, while finding the sexual allegations unsubstantiated.

Doe’s opposition did not contest the bank’s negligence ground, and her appellate argument focused on supervisor strict liability. The court treated the negligence challenge as forfeited. It likewise treated a ratification theory raised for the first time on appeal as forfeited.

Those preservation rulings matter to the disposition. The opinion’s account of this investigation does not replace the need to assess knowledge and corrective action in another case. The separate common-law ratification question was expressly unnecessary because the theory had not been preserved, as Doe explains.

What evidence matters after this decision

The court affirmed judgment and awarded no appellate costs. A worker evaluating supervisor harassment should identify who could direct the worker, assign work, influence employment decisions or exercise other qualifying authority over that worker. A complaint history and employer-response record also matter to a negligence theory, which needs to be addressed in its own right.

The companion Insight explains how to document a senior employee’s authority over your work. The case’s value lies in that concrete relationship and in the need to preserve each applicable liability theory.