Most would agree that workplace interactions should be professional and respectful. And few would dispute that a C-suite executive berating their subordinates with expletives, publicly mocking them, or subjecting them to personal verbal attacks is wholly unacceptable. On August 20,  several online sources reported that Citigroup had retained the law firm Paul Weiss to investigate complaints from Citigroup Wealth managing directors alleging that Head of Wealth Andy Sieg engaged in such behavior. (Articles published by New York Post, MSN, and AdvisorHub.)

This article uses that timely context as inspiration, however, the article does not make any findings about Mr. Sieg’s specific behavior or assume the truth of any allegations. Instead, the examples that follow are framed as a hypothetical, C-suite executive scenario for purposes of illustrating how allegations of abusive conduct might be assessed under California law.

Although Citigroup has not publicly shared the investigation’s findings, the issues highlighted by these complaints provide an opportunity for employers to consider how to assess what is generally referred to as “bullying” and categorized as allegations of “abusive conduct.”

Does Workplace Bullying Violate California Law?

What is particularly tricky about claims of bullying and abusive conduct is that in California, as in most states in the United States, abusive conduct/bullying does not violate the law – unless it is connected to an employee’s membership in a protected group. Yet, most employers have policies prohibiting such behavior (and Citigroup did have such a policy). Even in the absence of formal policies, there is a general expectation that employees treat one another respectfully. Moreover, how employees respond to harsh conduct varies widely, with some letting it roll off their backs and others becoming very upset. Determining an objective standard for what crosses the line can be difficult.

Why Should Policies Clearly Define Bullying and Abusive Conduct?

When an employer’s policy prohibits bullying or abusive conduct and outlines examples or definitions, it can help determine whether specific behavior qualifies as such. Although Citigroup’s Code of Conduct bans bullying and abusive conduct, it does not define these terms or offer examples to guide an investigator’s assessment. Interestingly, although California law does not prohibit bullying, California law has defined what bullying consists of and made it mandatory that employers train their employees about bullying using this definition.

This article outlines California’s legal definition of abusive conduct and uses a hypothetical C-suite executive scenario, inspired by the publicly reported allegations, to illustrate how investigators might evaluate such situations under California law.

Hypothetical Scenario

Imagine John Carter, the Chief Wealth Officer of a global financial institution, becomes the subject of employee complaints regarding workplace behavior. According to the reports, Carter has:

• Berated his deputy, Mark Ellis, during a leadership meeting, raising his voice, using expletives, and striking a table in frustration – an outburst that left Ellis in tears.
• Publicly mocked Senior Vice President Lisa Chen, both to her face during meetings and in conversations with others after she left the room.
• Dismissed team members’ work as “pathetic” during staff briefings.
• Sarcastically ridiculed Director Priya Shah immediately after she exited a strategy session, leaving other attendees visibly uncomfortable.

In this hypothetical, employees allege Carter’s conduct was not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern that left team members feeling humiliated, intimidated, and unsafe speaking up.

A neutral investigation would ordinarily assess the facts to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence supports that Carter engaged in the conduct alleged and, if so, whether the conduct could reasonably be considered abusive. For the purposes of this article, however, the author will proceed under the assumption that the allegations are true. The question then becomes whether Carter’s conduct constitutes abusive conduct.

What is Abusive Conduct Under California Law?

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act defines bullying under Cal. Gov’t Code § 12950.1(h)(2) as follows:

“Abusive conduct” means conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.

Applying this definition, an investigator assessing whether Carter engaged in abusive conduct would evaluate the facts to determine if Carter (1) acted with malice, (2) behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would deem hostile and offensive, and (3) demonstrated conduct that was unrelated to the organization’s legitimate business interests.

What is Malice Under California Law?

Under California law, “malice” is defined as conduct that is intended to cause injury to another, or despicable conduct that is engaged in with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. See, Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1), and Judicial Council of California Civil (CACI) Jury Instructions (2025 edition), CACI No. 3114 (“Malice” Explained).

For this analysis, let’s assume the investigation did not uncover facts indicating that Carter intended to harm anyone, but instead that the evidence suggested he acted with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others (here, his subordinates). Under this aspect of malice, a finding that Carter acted with malice would require determining that his conduct met the threshold of being “despicable.” According to California jury instructions, “despicable conduct” refers to actions that are considered so vile, base, or contemptible that they would be regarded unfavorably by reasonable people. See, CACI No. 3114 (“Malice” Explained).

A finding of malice in the context of workplace bullying turns on whether the conduct was willfully hurtful, showed conscious disregard for others’ rights or safety, and rose to the level of despicable behavior.

The alleged behavior attributed to Carter—explosive tirades, disparaging comments, and sarcastic ridicule—suggest a disregard for psychological safety and employee rights. Psychological safety in the workplace means employees feel comfortable expressing concerns, asking questions, and admitting mistakes without fear of ridicule or reprisal. Actions by managers that involve public humiliation or ridicule may undermine this safety, contribute to an atmosphere of apprehension, and damage trust among team members. Such conduct could reasonably be perceived by an objective observer as hostile to a healthy workplace and may fall within the legal definition of malice.

What Constitutes Hostile or Offensive Conduct?

The next consideration is whether a reasonable person would find Carter’s alleged actions hostile and offensive. In this context, such behaviors—including public criticism of employees’ work and the ridiculing of colleagues outside their presence—may cause embarrassment and contribute to a workplace environment marked by apprehension and diminished trust.

When a supervisor uses their authority to single out and disparage others, this can inadvertently signal that such behavior is acceptable and may lead to further incidents. Actions of this nature may conflict with widely accepted standards of respect and dignity at work and could undermine an employee’s sense of safety and well-being.

Given these factors, an impartial observer might conclude that the conduct described is inconsistent with principles supporting a respectful and safe work environment. Such behavior could be considered hostile or offensive within the context of organizational codes of conduct.

Conduct Unrelated to Legitimate Business Interests

The investigator must then assess if Carter’s conduct was unrelated to the organization’s legitimate business interests. The actions taken were in a work context and Carter may have had legitimate concerns about an employee’s performance. However, even if the discussions were business-related, it is difficult to imagine there could be a legitimate reason for an employer to subject employees to personal abuse or public humiliation. The allegations—that Carter raised his voice, used expletives, and struck a table—go beyond critical feedback and would reasonably be considered to constitute verbal abuse. Such actions are not justified by legitimate business interests and instead reflect an intent to demean or intimidate.

The Single Act Exception

Typically, a single act does not amount to abusive conduct unless it is particularly severe. (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12950.1(h)(2).) Here, Carter is accused of multiple instances of abusive behavior. Even if the allegations were limited to a single incident—one raised voice, one expletive, in one meeting—a finding of abusive conduct could occur. Publicly insulting an employee is distinct from offering legitimate criticism; managers are generally advised to praise in public and criticize in private to prevent humiliation or threats to employees’ well-being.

Conclusion

Abusive conduct in the workplace—whether alleged against a senior executive or any other employee—presents serious issues that require careful, neutral investigation. Employers must ensure a safe and respectful environment for all employees by adhering to legal standards and company policies. The hypothetical scenario outlined here highlights the importance of addressing and preventing abusive behavior to maintain a healthy and productive workplace.