Using an analogy of kids being molested is wildly unfair because we do not hold children to the same expectations that we hold adults. A child being abused by someone in a position of both authority and influence who seems to go along with it and not snitch is understandable. That doesn't hold true when you are talking about professionals in a workplace.
Obviously the big issue here is the complete lack of ethics in the company culture. As sieger and others said, you NEVER saw anything close to this happen in other parts of the software world, because management/hr would nip that shit so fucking fast it couldn't even approach this kind of rampant degeneracy. But there's a flip side to this, and it's the acceptance and victim culture that says nothing and lets it go. If you are molested and you say absolutely nothing for a decade and then when you find out dozens of others were subjected to the same awful experiences and THEN you say something? You helped empower that predator. You stood by while others were abused, with the ability to do something and instead doing nothing.
This entire culture of just accepting that grown ass adults are going to quietly not report while abuse continues and its ok because its scary to report and there might be repercussions... no, that's cowardly and dangerous and empowers the scumbags. The if you see something say something attitude needs to be pushed instead. Nobody wants to tell a victim they handled a situation badly. Nobody wants to tell victims that it shouldn't be victimS plural because it should have been identified sooner. Nobody wants to accept that sometimes doing what's right and being responsible means the possibility of hardship and you should do it anyway. Everyone wants to tell victims they can do no wrong and look past that you can have an entire decade of people getting piss drunk and sexually harassing while nobody stands up to it and that's apparently all on the drunks who aren't even getting in trouble.
I can agree with most of this, but keep in mind the DFEH investigation says there are clear instances of HR being notified and HR not investigating claims, and retaliating against people who made the claims. Those are people who
did come forward, and if the claims in the DFEH filing are true, were retaliated against for it--that would then create a culture in which other people would have a logical reason not to come forward, because it just tends to get you punished.
Retaliation is a huge part of the legal piece of this. There's a pretty funny story about incompetence and sexual harassment that resulted in my sister getting like a $100,000 settlement. She was an office clerk for a small public utility (had like 12 employees), the public utility was governed by an elected three person board. The manager of the utility had resigned awhile before, and one of the elected board members was functioning as the quasi-President of the utility because they didn't really want to hire a full time President. The board member was an creepy old dude who did creepy old dude things. He would make inappropriate sexual remarks fairly daily at the office. My sister didn't really care much, but one of the other women in the office was targeted for some specific stuff. The guy started hitting on her aggressively, and despite being told to fuck off a few times, he started following the woman home after work, staying parked outside her house etc. After like 2 days of this she began pursuing legal action and let the company know she was in the process of getting a restraining order against the guy. The lawyer the woman hired reached out to my sister, and informed her that even just the comments he had made to her, would qualify as sexual harassment, and that she could be eligible for money, she could sign on with him and he would work on contingency as is common in such cases. My sister has been poor her entire life, so what amounted to basically free $ appealed to her.
A day after the lawsuit was filed, the utility holds a board meeting (note this is a public board, the meeting was public record), the board's council was also at the meeting in an advisory capacity. The elected board member who was the subject of the lawsuit said he intended to fire both of the women who had signed on to the lawsuit specifically as retaliation. The board's council said basically verbatim "that would be illegal retaliation and would be a major legal liability", but the board member basically bullied the other two board members in agreeing with him. So my sister and her coworker are fired. A few weeks later as their lawyer is basically making known he has all the documentation of the board meeting including black and white proof of retaliation, it sinks in to the board they have committed a fairly big civil tort and given the other side basically rock solid evidence of their deliberate action. They end up settling the case, my sister got around $100,000 for a job that maybe paid $15/hr and that she hadn't planned to work at for long anyway, the other woman who was the subject of more serious harassment got like 2.5x that. [As an aside, despite repeated suggestions by me on how my sister needed to properly handle the money, she blew the money within a year and did not pay tax on it, so the year after she had to enter a lengthy payment plan with the IRS for owed tax liability--there's a life lesson there about why poor people often remain poor forever.]
The thing about most cases of sexual harassment is it is often not easy to prove, it occurs (frequently) in 1 on 1 situations, sometimes with elements that raise serious credibility concerns (i.e. if both parties were drinking), but retaliation is usually much more documented and produces evidence. Federal law and most state laws that prohibit retaliation for claims like this do so for the reason that retaliation creates a culture in which people won't come forward--the most common employment violation that the EEOC for example investigates is actually workplace retaliation. It's also the most common violation that results in an adverse judgement for the employer.