Bitchin' Sauce Hit With $9.1M Verdict, Jury Finds Malice In Sexual Harassment And Wage Theft Case

A San Diego jury awarded former Bitchin’ Sauce employee Sarah Freeman $9.1 million on November 27, 2024, after finding Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC, and CEO Starr Edwards liable for sexual harassment, retaliation, and systematic wage violations. The jury found the company acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, awarding $4 million in compensatory damages and over $5 million in punitive damages—making it the highest verdict for meal and rest break violations in California in 2024 and a Top 10 labor and employment verdict statewide.

What Is the Bitchin’ Sauce Lawsuit About?

Sarah Freeman filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court on August 16, 2022, alleging her employment at Bitchin’ Beach Club in Carlsbad devolved into a nightmare of sexual harassment, retaliation, and systematic labor code violations. Hired in late 2020 as a recreational program lead, Freeman claimed her supervisor Drew Keefer subjected her to severe sexual harassment including explicit comments, degrading references, and threatening behavior.

When Freeman reported Keefer’s workplace misconduct, the company immediately relayed her complaint to the supervisor, causing him to angrily instruct her to never go over his head again. The harassment continued for over a year and a half while Freeman was simultaneously misclassified, denied meal and rest breaks, and forced to work overtime without pay.

Freeman confided her concerns to a coworker who reported to ownership. The company fired Keefer for “other misconduct” but told him Freeman had complained of sexual harassment. Keefer then alleged for the first time that Freeman had sexually harassed him. Despite Keefer’s multiple stellar performance reviews of Freeman and lack of supporting evidence, ownership investigated his retaliatory claims. Freeman was terminated in March 2022, days after reporting the harassment and off-the-clock work violations.

Who Are the Parties Involved?

Plaintiff: Sarah Freeman, 44, former Recreation Program Lead at Bitchin’ Beach Club

Defendants:

Bitchin’ Inc. (parent company)
Bitchin’ Sauce, LLC (food products company)
Bitchin’ Beach Club, LLC (Carlsbad recreational facility)
Starr Edwards (CEO and co-founder)

Supervisor: Drew Keefer (fired during investigation)

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Golnar Fozi and Jeremy Dwork of Fozi Dwork & Modafferi, LLP, Carlsbad

Defense Counsel: Brook Barnes and Clint Engleson of Snell & Wilmer, San Diego

Presiding Judge: Hon. Cynthia Freeland, San Diego County Superior Court

Bitchin’ Sauce is a $55 million San Diego-based company founded by Starr Edwards and her husband Luke Edwards, selling almond-based dips in Costco, Whole Foods, and 10,000 Starbucks locations nationwide.

Bitchin' Sauce Hit with $9.1M Verdict, Jury Finds Malice in Sexual Harassment and Wage Theft Case

Timeline of Legal Events

Late 2020: Freeman hired as Recreation Program Lead at Bitchin’ Beach Club in Carlsbad

2020-March 2022: Freeman allegedly subjected to sexual harassment, denied meal and rest breaks, denied overtime, and misclassified

During Employment: Freeman reported Keefer’s tardiness and absenteeism; company informed Keefer of complaints, leading to retaliation

Investigation Period: Coworker reported Freeman’s harassment complaints to ownership; Keefer fired for misconduct

Post-Termination: Keefer alleged Freeman sexually harassed him (first time making such claim)

March 2022: Freeman terminated days after reporting harassment and off-the-clock work

August 16, 2022: Freeman filed lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 37-2022-00033240-CU-WT-NC)

March 1, 2024: Defendants filed motion for summary judgment/adjudication

November 2024: 12-day jury trial commenced

November 27, 2024: Jury returned $9.1 million verdict finding malice, oppression, and fraud

Legal Framework: California Employment Laws at Issue

This case involves multiple critical areas of California employment law that provide some of the strongest worker protections in the nation.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

FEHA (Government Code § 12940) prohibits workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The statute provides broader protections than federal Title VII.

Sexual Harassment (§ 12940(j)): Prohibits harassment based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, and related protected characteristics. Sexual harassment includes:

Quid pro quo: Conditioning employment benefits on sexual submission
Hostile work environment: Severe or pervasive unwelcome conduct creating intimidating, hostile, or offensive workplace

Employer Liability Standards:

Supervisor harassment: Employers are strictly liable for all acts of harassment by supervisors, regardless of whether the employer knew about the conduct
Coworker harassment: Employers are liable if they knew or should have known about harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action

The California Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office established that even a single severe incident can constitute actionable harassment under FEHA when considered under the totality of circumstances.

Retaliation (§ 12940(h)): Prohibits adverse employment actions against employees who:

Report harassment or discrimination
Participate in workplace investigations
Exercise protected rights under FEHA

Failure to Prevent Harassment (§ 12940(k)): Imposes affirmative duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and promptly correct it when discovered.

California Labor Code Violations

Meal Break Violations (Labor Code § 512): California requires:

30-minute unpaid, duty-free meal break for shifts exceeding 5 hours
Second 30-minute meal break for shifts exceeding 10 hours
Breaks must be timely, uninterrupted, and free from work duties

Rest Break Violations (Labor Code § 226.7): California mandates:

10-minute paid rest break for every 4 hours worked or major fraction thereof
Breaks must be duty-free and uninterrupted
Employers cannot require employees to remain on-call

Penalty for Violations: One hour of pay at regular rate for each workday meal break was denied, plus one additional hour for each workday rest break was denied (maximum 2 hours premium pay per day).

Freeman alleged violations spanning 237 workdays—making the potential exposure substantial even before the jury considered other damages.

Overtime Violations: California requires:

Time-and-a-half pay for hours worked over 8 in a workday or 40 in a workweek
Double-time pay for hours over 12 in a workday
Proper classification of employees as exempt or non-exempt

Misclassification: Employers who misclassify non-exempt employees as exempt to avoid paying overtime face significant penalties and back pay liability.

Punitive Damages Under California Law

California Civil Code § 3294 allows punitive damages when defendants act with:

Malice: Conduct intended to cause injury or conscious disregard of others’ rights
Oppression: Despicable conduct subjecting person to cruel and unjust hardship
Fraud: Intentional misrepresentation or concealment to deprive rights or cause injury

The jury’s finding that defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud exposed them to punitive damages designed to punish and deter similar conduct.

What Were the Specific Legal Claims?

Freeman’s complaint alleged multiple causes of action under California law:

FEHA Claims:

Sexual harassment creating hostile work environment (§ 12940(j))
Gender discrimination (§ 12940(a))
Retaliation for reporting harassment (§ 12940(h))
Retaliation for participating in workplace investigation (§ 12940(h))
Failure to prevent harassment (§ 12940(k))

Labor Code Violations:

Failure to pay overtime wages
Failure to provide meal breaks (Labor Code § 512)
Failure to provide rest breaks (Labor Code § 226.7)
Misclassification of employee status
Failure to pay all wages due

Retaliation Claims:

Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
Retaliation for exercising Labor Code rights
Retaliation for taking protected sick leave
Retaliation for complaining about off-the-clock work

Freeman sought compensatory damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and suffering, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

What Did the Jury Find?

After 12 days of trial, the jury determined:

Employment Status: Freeman was employed by Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC (all three entities jointly employed her).

Sexual Harassment: Freeman endured workplace harassment due to her gender. The harassment by supervisor Keefer created a hostile work environment.

Discharge Motivation: While the jury found Freeman’s discharge was not substantially motivated by her gender, they found other unlawful bases for termination.

Retaliation: Defendants retaliated against Freeman for:

Participating in workplace harassment investigation
Complaining about being forced to work off the clock
Exercising protected legal rights

Meal and Rest Break Violations:

237 workdays with meal break violations
Starr Edwards personally involved in these violations
Systematic denial of required breaks

Overtime Violations: Nearly 18 months of unpaid overtime wages owed.

Malice, Oppression, and Fraud: The jury explicitly found Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC acted with malice, oppression, and fraud—the statutory prerequisite for punitive damages.

Damages Breakdown: $9.1 Million Verdict

The November 27, 2024 verdict awarded Freeman:

Compensatory Damages: $4,054,108

Lost wages (past and future)
Unpaid overtime
Meal break penalties (237 workdays × penalty rate)
Rest break penalties (237 workdays × penalty rate)
Emotional distress
Pain and suffering

The jury held all three corporate defendants jointly and severally liable for the $4 million compensatory award.

Punitive Damages: $5,048,000

Bitchin’ Inc.: $2,500,000
Bitchin’ Sauce, LLC: $2,500,000
Bitchin’ Beach Club, LLC: $48,000

Total Verdict: $9,102,108

This ranks as:

Top 10 labor and employment verdict in California for 2024
Highest verdict for meal and rest break violations in California in 2024
Significant sexual harassment and retaliation award

The compensatory damages alone exceeded Freeman’s initial settlement demand of $1 million. The punitive damages nearly doubled the total award.

Why This Case Matters Legally

Strict Liability for Supervisor Harassment

The verdict reinforces California’s strict liability standard for supervisor harassment. Under FEHA, employers are automatically liable for harassment by supervisors regardless of whether they knew about the misconduct. The company’s argument that they fired Keefer promptly did not shield them from liability for the harassment that occurred during employment.

State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) established this principle: “Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor.”

Retaliation for Reporting Harassment

The jury found the company retaliated by investigating and terminating Freeman after she reported harassment. Key facts establishing retaliation:

Complaint immediately relayed to harasser
Harasser instructed Freeman never to report him
Company investigated harasser’s counter-allegations despite:
- Claims made only after his termination
- Harasser’s previous stellar performance reviews of Freeman
- Lack of supporting evidence
- Obvious retaliatory timing
Freeman terminated days after reporting harassment and wage violations

California law prohibits any adverse action against employees who report harassment or participate in investigations. The temporal proximity between Freeman’s complaints and her termination supported the retaliation finding.

Personal Liability of CEO Starr Edwards

The jury found Starr Edwards personally involved in the meal break violations spanning 237 workdays. This demonstrates that individual supervisors and executives can face personal liability for certain employment law violations in California.

Under FEHA, supervisors can be held individually liable for harassment claims. While the verdict doesn’t specify individual liability for Starr Edwards on the harassment claim, her personal involvement in wage violations exposed her to potential individual damages.

Systematic Wage Theft: 237 Days of Violations

The meal and rest break violations spanning 237 workdays reveal systematic wage theft rather than isolated mistakes. At 2 hours premium pay per day (1 hour for meal break violation + 1 hour for rest break violation), Freeman was owed approximately 474 hours of premium pay—potentially $15,000-$20,000 in break penalties alone before calculating other damages.

California employers must provide and permit breaks, not merely make them available. The company’s failure to ensure Freeman received breaks for nearly a year and a half demonstrated a pattern of Labor Code violations.

Malice, Oppression, and Fraud Finding

The jury’s explicit finding that defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud is devastating. This finding indicates:

Conduct was not merely negligent but intentional or recklessly indifferent
Defendants acted with conscious disregard of Freeman’s rights
Behavior was despicable and subjected Freeman to cruel, unjust hardship
Actions involved deception or concealment

This finding justifies the substantial punitive damages and makes the verdict more difficult to overturn on appeal.

Investigation Process Failures

The case highlights critical investigation failures:

Red Flags Ignored:

Harasser’s allegations arose only after termination (obvious retaliation)
Harasser previously gave Freeman stellar performance reviews
No corroborating evidence supported harasser’s claims
Freeman denied allegations, but company proceeded anyway
Temporal proximity to harassment complaint

Best Practices Violated:

Company revealed complainant’s identity to accused harasser
Failed to protect complainant from retaliation
Credited retaliatory counter-allegations over initial complainant
Terminated victim rather than taking corrective action

Employment law experts emphasize that employers must conduct prompt, thorough, impartial investigations. Here, the investigation process itself became evidence of retaliation and failure to prevent harassment.

What Defense Arguments Failed?

Defendants’ primary arguments were rejected by the jury:

“Thorough Investigation” Defense: Defendants argued the harassment investigation was thorough and fair. The jury rejected this, finding the investigation actually facilitated retaliation. Revealing Freeman’s identity to Keefer immediately, then crediting his retaliatory counter-allegations, demonstrated the investigation was neither protective nor impartial.

“Legitimate Business Reasons” Defense: Defendants contended Freeman was fired for legitimate reasons unrelated to her complaints. The timing—termination days after reporting harassment and wage violations—undermined this defense. The jury found retaliation, not legitimate cause.

“At-Will Employment” Defense: Defendants argued Freeman was an at-will employee who could be terminated anytime without cause. While California is an at-will state, employers cannot fire employees for exercising protected rights. The at-will doctrine doesn’t shield employers from liability for unlawful termination.

Keefer’s Counter-Allegations: The defense emphasized Keefer’s claims that Freeman sexually harassed him and created a hostile environment. The jury rejected these allegations, finding them retaliatory and unsupported. Freeman’s denial of sending sexually suggestive messages, Keefer’s previous positive reviews of Freeman, and the timing of his allegations all undermined credibility.

“Single Incident” Minimization: Before California’s Bailey decision, defendants might have argued isolated harassment incidents don’t constitute actionable claims. Post-Bailey, even severe single incidents can support hostile environment claims. Freeman’s case involved multiple incidents over 18 months, making this defense even weaker.

What Legal Experts Say About This Case

Employment law attorneys view this verdict as a powerful reminder of California’s pro-employee legal landscape:

Strong FEHA Protections: California’s strict liability standard for supervisor harassment and robust retaliation protections create significant employer exposure when supervisors engage in misconduct.

Wage and Hour Compliance Critical: The meal and rest break component demonstrates that systematic Labor Code violations can generate massive liability. At maximum 2 hours premium pay per day, violations across multiple employees can quickly escalate to class action exposure.

Punitive Damages Risk: The malice, oppression, and fraud finding shows that inadequate responses to harassment complaints can transform standard employment disputes into punitive damages cases. Employers who ignore red flags, credit retaliatory allegations, or terminate complainants face exposure beyond compensatory damages.

Investigation Best Practices: This case is taught in employment law courses as an example of investigation failures. Revealing complainant identity without protection, crediting obviously retaliatory counter-allegations, and terminating the initial complainant are textbook mistakes.

Personal Liability: Starr Edwards’ personal involvement in meal break violations highlights that executives and supervisors can face individual liability. This creates additional incentive for proper HR oversight and compliance.

Similar Cases and Legal Precedents

Key California Sexual Harassment Cases

State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003): Established strict liability for supervisor harassment under FEHA, regardless of employer knowledge.

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024): Single severe incident can constitute actionable harassment; employers must take immediate corrective action even for isolated events.

Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005): Widespread sexual favoritism can create hostile environment by sending message that women are sexual playthings.

Roby v. McKesson (2009): Harassment includes workplace conduct communicating hostile messages; employers liable for retaliatory conduct following complaints.

Meal and Rest Break Precedents

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012): Clarified employer obligations to provide meal and rest breaks; employers must relieve employees of duty and relinquish control but need not ensure breaks are taken. However, employers must not impede or discourage breaks.

Augustus v. ABM Security Services (2016): Rest breaks must be duty-free; employers cannot require employees to remain on-call or carry communication devices during breaks.

United Parcel Service v. Superior Court (2011): Confirmed employees owe 2 hours premium pay per day maximum (1 hour for meal violations + 1 hour for rest violations), but each workday violation is compensable separately.

Similar Verdicts

Recent California employment verdicts demonstrate strong jury sympathy for harassment and wage theft victims:

Ruvalcaba v. Santa Cruz City Schools (2022): $27 million in punitive damages for wrongful termination and disability discrimination
Reyna Gonzalez v. Lazer Broadcasting (2023): Significant verdict for sexual harassment by repeat offender

Freeman’s $9.1 million verdict ranks among 2024’s highest employment verdicts, reflecting jury outrage at the combination of sexual harassment, retaliation, and systematic wage theft.

What This Means for Employers

Immediate Action Items

Review Harassment Policies: Ensure anti-harassment policies clearly prohibit retaliation and protect complainants. Train managers on responding to complaints without revealing complainant identity unless necessary.

Audit Wage and Hour Compliance:

Verify all employees properly classified as exempt/non-exempt
Ensure meal and rest breaks are provided and recorded
Review overtime calculations and payment practices
Implement systems to track break compliance

Investigation Protocol:

Conduct prompt, thorough, impartial investigations
Protect complainants from retaliation
Document all steps and findings
Take appropriate corrective action regardless of accused employee’s value
Never credit obvious retaliatory counter-allegations without substantial evidence

Training Requirements: California employers with 5+ employees must provide harassment prevention training every two years:

2 hours for supervisors
1 hour for non-supervisory employees
Include prevention of abusive conduct
Cover harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation

Exposure Assessment

Employers should calculate potential exposure:

Meal/Rest Break Violations: 2 hours premium pay per day × number of affected employees × number of violation days = substantial liability before considering class action multipliers.

Sexual Harassment: No caps on compensatory or punitive damages under FEHA. Verdicts regularly reach millions for severe harassment combined with retaliation.

Retaliation: Separate damages for each retaliatory act; includes emotional distress, lost wages, future earnings, and punitive damages.

Attorney’s Fees: Prevailing plaintiffs recover attorney’s fees and costs, adding substantial amounts to employer liability.

What This Means for Employees

Know Your Rights

Sexual Harassment Protections: You have the right to work free from harassment based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, or related characteristics. Both quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment are illegal.

Retaliation Protections: Employers cannot fire, demote, discipline, or otherwise retaliate against you for:

Reporting harassment or discrimination
Participating in workplace investigations
Filing complaints with government agencies
Exercising rights under Labor Code

Meal and Rest Breaks: You are entitled to:

30-minute unpaid meal break after 5 hours
Second 30-minute meal break after 10 hours
10-minute paid rest break for every 4 hours worked
1 hour premium pay for each day breaks are denied

Overtime Pay: Non-exempt employees must receive:

Time-and-a-half for hours over 8/day or 40/week
Double-time for hours over 12/day

If You Experience Workplace Violations

Document Everything:

Keep detailed records of harassment incidents, including dates, times, witnesses, and exactly what was said/done
Save text messages, emails, and other evidence
Track missed meal breaks, rest breaks, and unpaid overtime hours
Note any adverse actions following complaints

Report Promptly:

Follow company’s harassment reporting procedures
Report in writing (email provides paper trail)
If direct supervisor is the harasser, report to HR or higher management
Request confirmation that complaint was received

Preserve Evidence:

Do not delete communications or electronic evidence
Request copies of personnel file, performance reviews, and policies
Photograph or screenshot relevant evidence
Identify potential witnesses

Consult Employment Attorney:

California provides 3-year statute of limitations for most wage claims
FEHA complaints must be filed with Civil Rights Department within 3 years
Early consultation preserves more legal options
Many employment attorneys offer free consultations

Avoid Common Mistakes:

Don’t quit without consulting attorney (may forfeit claims)
Don’t sign separation agreements without legal review
Don’t post about situation on social media
Don’t destroy evidence or communications

Current Status and Next Steps

Post-Verdict Status

The November 27, 2024 verdict is final unless appealed. Defendants have options:

Motion for New Trial: Defendants could file motion arguing jury verdict was against weight of evidence or that errors occurred during trial. These motions rarely succeed.

Motion for JNOV: Defendants could seek judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence supported jury findings. High bar to overturn jury verdict.

Appeal: Defendants could appeal to California Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Appeals typically take 1-2 years. Freeman’s attorneys would argue verdict is supported by substantial evidence and proper jury instructions were given.

Settlement: Parties could negotiate settlement to avoid appeal costs and delay. Settlement would likely be less than full verdict but provide certainty.

Potential Appeal Issues

Defendants might argue:

Punitive damages ratio violates due process (California allows 1:1 to 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages in most cases)
Insufficient evidence supported malice, oppression, fraud finding
Trial court made evidentiary or instructional errors
Damages were excessive

However, the detailed findings, 12-day trial, and substantial evidence make successful appeal difficult.

Enforcement

If verdict stands, Freeman can enforce judgment through:

Wage garnishments
Liens on business assets
Levying bank accounts
Assignment of receivables

California strongly enforces employment judgments.

Industry-Specific Implications

Hospitality and Recreation Sector

Bitchin’ Beach Club’s recreational facility model creates common employment law pitfalls:

Seasonal and Variable Schedules: Recreation facilities often have fluctuating staffing needs, making meal and rest break compliance challenging. Employers must ensure breaks are provided even during busy periods.

Supervisory Oversight: Beach clubs, gyms, and recreation centers often have minimal HR oversight, leaving frontline supervisors without proper training. This creates sexual harassment and retaliation exposure.

Mixed Duties: Recreation program leads often perform both supervisory and hands-on duties, creating misclassification risks.

Food and Beverage Industry

Bitchin’ Sauce’s food production business faces separate challenges:

Production Pressure: Food manufacturing environments often pressure employees to skip breaks to meet production quotas. This creates systematic meal and rest break violations.

Misclassification: Food industry frequently misclassifies managers and supervisors as exempt to avoid overtime, despite duties not meeting legal exemption tests.

Growth Transition: As food companies scale from farmers markets to national retail, they often fail to implement proper HR infrastructure, creating employment law exposure.

The Broader Bitchin’ Sauce Story

This lawsuit emerged during ongoing family controversy surrounding Bitchin’ Sauce:

Founding and Growth: Starr Edwards founded Bitchin’ Sauce in 2010 with help from her brothers Ryan and Porter Smith. The almond-based dip grew from farmers markets to $55 million in annual sales.

Family Split: In 2015, disputes over financial and operational control led to legal showdown resulting in Starr taking full ownership. Brothers Ryan and Porter were ousted from the business they helped build.

Competing Brand: Ryan and Porter launched competitor JeeSauce, marketing it as shelf-stable alternative to Bitchin’ Sauce and publicly sharing their grievances about the family split through podcasts and social media.

Public Controversy: The brothers’ “SauceCast” podcast episodes discuss the family rift, business disputes, and—following the November 2024 verdict—the $9.1 million jury award as confirmation of concerns they raised about company culture and leadership.

The family drama, competing brands, and now the massive employment verdict create significant reputation challenges for Bitchin’ Sauce as it competes in the crowded specialty food market.

Key Takeaways

Strict Liability for Supervisor Harassment: California employers are automatically liable for supervisor harassment regardless of knowledge or prompt response.
Retaliation Is Devastating: Terminating employees who report harassment exposes employers to massive liability, especially when combined with other violations.
Systematic Wage Violations Add Up: 237 days of meal and rest break violations generated substantial damages—employers cannot ignore Labor Code compliance.
Investigation Failures Compound Liability: Revealing complainant identity, crediting retaliatory allegations, and terminating victims transforms harassment cases into punitive damages cases.
Malice Findings Justify Punitive Damages: Jury finding of malice, oppression, and fraud enabled $5 million in punitive damages on top of $4 million compensatory award.
Personal Liability Risk: Individual supervisors and executives can face liability for wage violations and harassment, not just corporate entities.
Top 10 California Verdict: The $9.1 million award ranks among highest 2024 employment verdicts, demonstrating jury willingness to award substantial damages for workplace violations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can employers be liable for harassment they didn’t know about?

A: Yes, under California FEHA, employers are strictly liable for all sexual harassment by supervisors regardless of whether the employer knew about it. For coworker harassment, employers are liable if they knew or should have known and failed to take corrective action.

Q: What are meal and rest break requirements in California?

A: Non-exempt employees must receive a 30-minute unpaid meal break after 5 hours and a second 30-minute break after 10 hours. They must also receive 10-minute paid rest breaks for every 4 hours worked. Violations result in 1 hour premium pay per type of break missed per day (maximum 2 hours per day).

Q: Can an employer investigate accusations against an employee who reported harassment?

A: Yes, employers can investigate counter-allegations, but they must be extremely careful about retaliatory timing, credibility assessment, and protecting the initial complainant. Crediting obviously retaliatory accusations made only after termination without substantial supporting evidence demonstrates retaliation.

Q: What does “malice, oppression, and fraud” mean in employment cases?

A: These are California Civil Code § 3294 standards for punitive damages. Malice means intentional injury or conscious disregard of rights. Oppression means despicable conduct causing cruel, unjust hardship. Fraud means intentional misrepresentation or concealment causing injury. This finding allows juries to award punitive damages to punish and deter similar conduct.

Q: How long do employees have to file harassment or wage claims in California?

A: FEHA harassment and discrimination claims must be filed with the California Civil Rights Department within 3 years. Meal and rest break violations have a 3-year statute of limitations for wages. Unpaid overtime claims generally have a 3-year statute. Consult an attorney promptly to preserve claims.

Q: Can employees be fired for reporting harassment?

A: No. California law strictly prohibits retaliation against employees who report harassment, participate in investigations, or exercise protected rights. Terminating employees for reporting harassment violates FEHA and can result in massive liability including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Q: What should employees do if they experience sexual harassment at work?

A: Document all incidents with dates, times, witnesses, and details. Report in writing to HR or management. Save all evidence including messages, emails, and texts. Request copies of company policies and your personnel file. Consult an employment attorney to understand your rights and options. Do not quit without legal advice as this may forfeit claims.

Q: Are small businesses exempt from harassment laws?

A: No. California’s harassment prohibitions apply to all employers regardless of size, even those with just one employee. However, other FEHA provisions like discrimination only apply to employers with 5+ employees. Meal and rest break requirements apply to all non-exempt employees regardless of employer size.

This article provides legal information about the Bitchin’ Sauce employment lawsuit but does not constitute legal advice. Individuals with specific legal questions should consult licensed California employment attorneys.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah