In this article 6 sections
Survivors of workplace sexual assault in California have long faced a painful contradiction: the very trauma that makes coming forward so difficult also worked against them in court. Short filing windows meant that by the time many survivors were ready to pursue a civil claim, the legal door had already closed. A California law that took effect on January 1, 2026, Assembly Bill 250, changes that for many of them. It reopens expired civil claims for sexual assaults of adults, including assaults at work, for a window that closes on December 31, 2027. For people who previously believed their options were gone, that is a meaningful second chance.
If you or someone you know experienced sexual assault at work and has been told it is too late to file, that answer may no longer be correct.
What the 2026 Legislation Actually Changes
California has been expanding survivor rights in civil courts for several years. Since 2019, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 has given survivors who were assaulted at 18 or older the later of 10 years from the last act of sexual assault or three years from when they discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that an injury or illness resulted from it. AB 250 does not change that deadline. Instead, it revives claims that had already expired before January 1, 2026, against perpetrators and against employers and other private entities that are legally responsible, as we explained in our post on AB 250.
The practical effect is significant. Before section 340.16 took effect in 2019, adult survivors generally had only the two-year personal injury deadline. A separate provision of that section revives expired claims based on assaults on or after January 1, 2009, and those may be filed until December 31, 2026. Even 10 years is not always enough. Trauma, fear of retaliation, workplace power dynamics, and institutional cover-ups routinely caused survivors to miss their window. AB 250 acknowledges those realities and gives survivors whose claims expired another chance to act.
The law also addresses situations where employers or institutions actively concealed misconduct. To revive a claim against an employer or other entity, the survivor must allege that the entity, or its officers, employees, or agents, covered up or tried to cover up a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by the alleged perpetrator, for example through a confidentiality agreement that kept earlier complaints quiet. California courts can sometimes stop a defendant whose concealment kept a plaintiff from suing in time from relying on the deadline, but relying on that doctrine in litigation is uncertain and expensive. The statutory revival provides a cleaner, more reliable basis for filing.
The revival has limits. It does not apply to claims that were litigated to a final judgment or resolved in a written settlement before January 1, 2026, and it does not apply to claims against public entities, such as a public employer. Whether a particular claim qualifies is a fact-specific legal question that depends on the date of the assault, who is responsible, and what the employer knew and did. This is exactly the kind of analysis an attorney needs to perform before you conclude your claim is still barred.
Who Can Be Held Liable in a Workplace Sexual Assault Case
One of the most important things to understand about these claims is that liability does not stop with the individual who committed the assault. California law provides multiple avenues for holding employers accountable, and those avenues often lead to more substantial compensation than a claim against an individual perpetrator alone.
An employer can be held directly liable when it knew or should have known about a dangerous employee and failed to act. This includes situations where prior complaints were ignored, where HR investigations were conducted in bad faith, or where management participated in or enabled the misconduct. California Government Code Section 12940, which governs the Fair Employment and Housing Act, imposes affirmative obligations on employers to prevent harassment and assault in the workplace.
Employers can also face liability under a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision theory. If a company hired someone with a known history of misconduct, kept that person employed after warning signs emerged, or failed to supervise adequately, those failures can support a civil personal injury claim independent of any employment discrimination framework.
Third parties on company premises, such as contractors, vendors, or clients, can also be named as defendants when the employer failed to protect workers from foreseeable harm. AB 250’s revival can reach these defendants too, but a revived claim against any entity requires the cover-up allegation described above.
The Physical and Psychological Injuries That Drive Compensation
John Reardon spent nearly two decades as a chiropractor before becoming a personal injury attorney, and that background shapes how we approach injury documentation in every case we handle. Workplace sexual assault cases are no exception. In fact, the medical complexity of these cases is often underestimated, and that underestimation directly reduces the compensation survivors receive.
The physical injuries in sexual assault cases can include soft tissue trauma, musculoskeletal injuries, gynecological injuries, and chronic pain conditions that develop or worsen in the months following the assault. These are real, documentable physical harms that belong in a personal injury claim.
The psychological injuries are equally compensable under California law and are often the most significant component of a survivor’s damages. Post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, and the disruption of normal daily functioning are all recognized bases for non-economic damages. California Civil Code Section 3333 allows recovery for pain, suffering, and emotional distress, and courts have consistently upheld substantial awards in cases involving severe psychological harm.
Lost wages and diminished earning capacity are also recoverable. Many survivors leave their jobs, take extended medical leave, or find themselves unable to return to their prior field because of the assault. These economic losses are calculable and should be documented carefully from the beginning of the case.
What Evidence You Need to Gather Now
The extended deadline gives survivors more time, but it does not eliminate the need to act with purpose. Evidence degrades. Witnesses move on. Electronic records get deleted during routine data purges. The sooner you begin gathering documentation, the stronger your case will be.
The most important categories of evidence in a workplace sexual assault claim include the following.
HR records and internal complaints are often the most powerful evidence of employer knowledge and inaction. If you made a complaint, sent an email, or reported the assault to a supervisor, those records should be preserved. If you have access to copies, keep them. If you do not, an attorney can send a litigation hold letter requiring the employer to preserve all relevant documents.
Medical records create a timeline connecting the assault to your injuries. This includes records from emergency rooms, primary care physicians, mental health providers, and any specialists you have seen. If you have not yet sought treatment, doing so now serves both your health and your legal case.
Witness statements from coworkers who observed the assault, witnessed the perpetrator’s behavior, or heard about prior incidents can corroborate your account and establish a pattern. These witnesses may be reluctant to come forward voluntarily, but a formal legal process gives them a framework for participating.
Text messages, emails, and other communications between you and the perpetrator, or between you and HR, are often critical. Preserve everything you have access to on personal devices. Do not rely on your employer’s systems to retain these records.
A personal journal documenting your symptoms, your daily limitations, and the emotional impact of the assault can also support your non-economic damages claim. Courts and juries respond to specific, detailed accounts of how an injury has changed a person’s life.
How Employer Immunity Arguments Work and Why They Fail
Employers defending workplace sexual assault claims frequently raise immunity arguments, and survivors should understand what those arguments look like so they are not caught off guard.
Workers’ compensation exclusivity is the most common defense. Employers argue that because the assault happened at work, the survivor’s only remedy is through the workers’ compensation system, which limits recovery and bars civil lawsuits. California courts have consistently rejected this argument in sexual assault cases. The workers’ compensation system was not designed to address intentional torts, and California law is clear that intentional acts of sexual assault fall outside the exclusivity bar. The California Supreme Court addressed this principle in cases going back decades.
Employers also argue that the perpetrator was acting outside the scope of employment, which would limit the employer’s vicarious liability. This argument fails when the employer had supervisory authority over the perpetrator, when the assault occurred during work hours or on company property, or when the employer’s own negligence in hiring or supervision contributed to the harm.
Finally, some employers attempt to invoke arbitration agreements to force claims into private arbitration rather than court. California tried to restrict mandatory arbitration in employment with Assembly Bill 51 in 2019, but in 2023 the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts that law (Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta), so it cannot be relied on. The stronger protection for survivors is federal. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, signed in 2022, lets a person alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment choose to bring the case in court even if they signed an arbitration agreement before the dispute arose. It applies to disputes and claims that arose or accrued on or after March 3, 2022, so older claims may need a closer look. An attorney can evaluate whether an arbitration clause applies to your claim and whether it can be challenged.
How to Protect Your Claim Going Forward
The AB 250 revival window is a meaningful legal development, but it is not a reason to wait. It closes on December 31, 2027, and every month that passes makes evidence harder to obtain, witnesses harder to locate, and the case harder to build. The window gives survivors room to breathe, not permission to delay indefinitely.
The first step is a confidential consultation with a personal injury attorney who understands both the legal framework and the medical realities of these cases. At Reardon Stodolka, we bring John Reardon’s clinical background to every case we evaluate. We know how to read medical records, how to identify the connection between trauma and physical symptoms, and how to present that evidence in a way that supports maximum compensation.
We also understand that survivors of workplace sexual assault often come to us after years of silence, self-doubt, or failed attempts to resolve things internally. We approach every consultation with that context in mind. Our job is to give you an honest assessment of your options, not to pressure you into a decision before you are ready.
If you experienced workplace sexual assault in California and want to understand whether AB 250 or the current deadlines apply to your situation, contact us for a free, confidential consultation. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.