In Carrisales v. Department of Corrections (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1132, the Supreme Court held that FEHA's "primary concern" is to remedy unlawful employment practices, as opposed to imposing personal liability on individual employees. Generally, as of 1999, the FEHA did not cover harassment short of an unlawful employment practice, although the court cautioned that one should not conclude from FEHA noncoverage of certain conduct that anyone, such as a coworker, would be immunized from the consequences of conduct that is otherwise tortious. (Ibid.) Rather, although current section 12940(j)(1) (formerly section 12940(h)(1)) prohibits any "person" from harassing an employee, it was intended to impose "on the employer the duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent this harassment from occurring in the first place and to take immediate and appropriate action when it is or should be aware of the conduct." (Carrisales, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1140.)