Deepfakes, Workplace Harassment, and Current Case Law

Deepfakes, Workplace Harassment, and What Current Case Law

Employers and employees are now dealing with a fact pattern that would have sounded exotic a few years ago: a realistic, manipulated image or video spreads through a workplace, coworkers treat it as real or use it as a tool for humiliation, and the target is left dealing with the professional and personal fallout. The legal question is not whether courts need a brand new doctrine for this. The question is how existing harassment frameworks apply when the content is synthetic but the impact is real.

Harassing conduct can include… the distribution of pornography or sexually demeaning depictions of a protected class, including computer‑generated images or ‘deepfakes. -EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (2024)

The Core Legal Fact Pattern In The California Decision

A widely cited appellate decision in this area is Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, decided by the California Court of Appeals under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The plaintiff, an LAPD captain, learned that a topless photo of a woman was being circulated among department personnel, with people claiming it was her. A subordinate reported seeing officers viewing the photo while on duty and making lewd comments, and reported that the photo was being discussed broadly across multiple LAPD locations. The plaintiff requested that the department notify employees that the image was not of her and direct employees to stop sharing it. The department declined to send that department-wide message. The department’s investigation later confirmed that the photo had been distributed with the intent to depict her.

The case went to trial on a hostile work environment sexual harassment theory. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, found the conduct severe or pervasive, found a failure to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, and awarded $4 million in noneconomic damages. The City appealed, arguing that the plaintiff did not experience harassment directly and that the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the plaintiff’s working conditions were altered based on her secondhand knowledge that the image was widely circulating inside the department.

A Second Example Being Litigated In Washington

Public reporting also describes a lawsuit filed by a Washington State Patrol trooper, identified as Trooper Collin Pearson, alleging that coworkers circulated an AI-generated deepfake video depicting him kissing another trooper, accompanied by an audio statement described in the reporting as “This is SWAT training, no homo.” Reporting describes allegations tied to sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, and invasion of privacy, with the expectation that discovery will address who created the content and who distributed it. This matter is still being litigated, so the legal significance at this stage is the nature of the claims asserted and the workplace conduct alleged, not a final ruling.

What Federal Harassment Guidance Says About Deepfakes

Outside of any one lawsuit, the EEOC has published guidance summarizing hostile work environment harassment principles under the federal statutes it enforces, and that summary expressly lists the sharing of pornography or sexually demeaning depictions of people, including AI generated and deepfake images and videos, as an example of harassing conduct. The EEOC summary describes the legal concept in familiar terms: conduct that is so severe or so frequent that a reasonable person would find the environment abusive.

How New Jersey Harassment Law Frames The Same Type Of Conduct

In New Jersey, the primary statute is the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Courts analyzing hostile work environment claims under the LAD commonly rely on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s framework in Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us. As reflected in the case law and the model civil jury charge, the analysis generally focuses on whether the challenged conduct would not have occurred but for the protected characteristic, whether it was severe or pervasive, whether a reasonable person would believe the conditions of employment were altered, and whether the environment was hostile or abusive. That structure does not depend on the medium of the harassment. The structure focuses on the nature and impact of the conduct in the workplace.

New Jersey law also recognizes that severity can matter as much as frequency. Taylor v. Metzger is often cited for the proposition that a single incident can be actionable if it is sufficiently severe in context. In practice, that principle is relevant in a deepfake scenario because a single manipulated sexual depiction, if it spreads within the workplace and is treated as a basis for ridicule or sexual humiliation, can create an acute and immediate impact on a person’s working conditions even if the underlying content is not repeated in the same form every day. The point here is limited to the doctrinal fact that New Jersey recognizes single incident severity in the right circumstances, not a prediction about how any future deepfake case will be decided.

A single utterance of a racial epithet can, in some circumstances, be severe enough to create a hostile work environment. -Taylor, 152 N.J. at 500.

Why Employer Response Shows Up In These Cases

The Carranza record is instructive on a practical level because the alleged harm was not limited to the existence of the photo. The case turned on what was happening inside the workplace, what supervisors and coworkers were doing with the content, how broadly it circulated, and what the employer did after being placed on notice. The appellate affirmance did not create a special deepfake rule. It treated workplace distribution, workplace commentary, and the employer’s corrective response as central facts for the jury’s determination under the governing statute.

That same theme is consistent with the EEOC’s guidance summary, which frames harassment analysis around workplace conditions and the reality that sexually demeaning depictions can be a form of harassment. Once a complaint is made, the employer’s investigation steps, evidence preservation, and corrective action decisions become part of the evidentiary record in any later litigation.

Deepfake Takedown Statutes Are Moving At The Same Time

A separate legal track is developing around platform responsibilities for nonconsensual intimate imagery and altered sexual depictions. At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law on May 19, 2025, and it establishes a notice and removal mechanism enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, including a 48-hour removal requirement once a platform receives a valid notice under the statute. Florida has also enacted what is commonly described as Brooke’s Law, which reporting and legislative summaries describe as imposing a 48-hour removal obligation for covered platforms once a valid request is received. These laws target distribution and removal, while workplace harassment claims target employment conditions and employer responsibility once the conduct enters the workplace environment.

What This Means For New Jersey Businesses In Real Terms

From the perspective of a New Jersey employer, the immediate operational issue is usually evidence and speed. Synthetic content can be created and transmitted quickly, and it can spread through personal devices and private chats before management learns it exists. Once it does, the employer is forced into decisions about collecting the content, documenting who has it, limiting further distribution, and investigating who created or circulated it. Those are standard workplace investigation decisions, but the medium changes the pace and the reputational stakes.

The legally grounded lesson from the existing sources is that courts and enforcement agencies are already willing to treat manipulated sexual depictions and other demeaning synthetic content as a type of conduct that fits within established harassment analysis when it is tied to a protected characteristic and when it affects working conditions. The Carranza facts show how a claim can proceed even where the target experiences the misconduct through knowledge of circulation and workplace reaction, not only through direct face-to-face conduct. The EEOC guidance summary places deepfakes inside the category of sexually demeaning depictions that can contribute to a hostile environment analysis.

Final Thoughts

Deepfakes are not a separate category of workplace risk. They are a new delivery method for conduct that existing harassment law already recognizes as actionable when it is severe or pervasive and tied to a protected characteristic. The cases and guidance already in circulation show that liability analysis still turns on familiar themes: what happened in the workplace, how it affected working conditions, and what the employer did after receiving notice.

For more information about your legal rights or to schedule a consultation, please contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at www.pjlesq.com, call 201-904-2211, or email info@pjlesq.com.

Contact us today to discuss your business or legal matter. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.

---

For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at  info@pjlesq.com.

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at pl@pjlesq.com or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magazine and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​.

---

DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one, even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. This post will also focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above do not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with those of other lawyers. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.