The alleged actions are not alleged to be ongoing. It's been reported that this is a civil action.
I am puzzled by what that means in this context. My limited understanding is that civil actions can only be taken to recoup damages (plus penalties for causing damages) or to stop ongoing behavior which is causing damages.
But the merit of the suit is reported to be a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment, which to my (again limited) knowledge is usually litigated by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ is conspicuously absent from this law suit though.
I understand that states can sue firms when those firms cause states to increase certain expenses (increased healthcare outlays, for example). But I am struggling to imagine what would be the increased costs to the state of CA if a certain firm engages in behavior which gives cause of action to the firm's past and current employees.
So what is the legal reason for CA having standing to sue?