This unpublished opinion reinstates a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against his former supervisor, but rejects the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against his former employer.

A California employer generally cannot be liable for punitive damages based on the acts of an employee, unless those acts were authorized or ratified by corporate management. (See Civil Code section 3294(b).)

In this case, a plaintiff alleged that he was harassed by his former supervisor, and he sought punitive damages against his former employer on the theory that the employer ratified the harasser’s conduct after the fact. To prove ratification, he pointed to the fact after he filed an action for harassment, the employer did not terminate the alleged harasser or send him to training.

The California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Seven) rejected that argument as unsupported by any authority. The court noted that an employer cannot ratify an employee’s misconduct unless they employer actually knew of the misconduct. The mere fact that someone alleged misconduct is not enough. There must be some evidence that the employer knew those allegations were actually true.