Workplace Harassment Laws by State: 50-State Guide (2026)

Workplace harassment law in the United States has two layers. Federal law, mainly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, treats harassment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin as discrimination in the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" and applies to employers with 15 or more employees (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), 2000e-2(a)(1)).

State fair-employment acts sit on top of that floor, and many go further: they cover smaller employers, protect more traits, give more time to file, lower the "severe or pervasive" bar, require training, or limit nondisclosure agreements. This guide explains the federal rules and compares all 50 states and the District of Columbia in one table; each state links to its own page.

Information last verified on 2026-10-20. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers federal and state law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors, coworkers and non-employees such as customers and contractors: Title VII and the other federal employment statutes, the EEOC's sexual harassment regulation, the Supreme Court's harassment decisions, and the fair-employment acts of the 50 states and D.C. It does not cover wrongful firing or the full charge and lawsuit procedure (see wrongful termination laws), at-will employment rules (see at-will employment), criminal harassment and stalking, local ordinances, or damages estimates (see the employment discrimination settlement calculator).

What counts as workplace harassment under federal law?

Title VII has no separate harassment clause. It makes it unlawful for an employer "to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1)). Harassment law grew out of that sentence.

The EEOC's sexual harassment guideline, 29 C.F.R. 1604.11(a), states that "Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII." It describes two forms. In the first, often called quid pro quo, submission to unwelcome sexual advances or requests is made a term or condition of employment, or submission or rejection is used as the basis for employment decisions. In the second, the conduct "has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."

The Supreme Court set the threshold for the second form, the hostile work environment. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), it held that harassment must be "sufficiently severe or pervasive 'to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment.'" Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993), added that the environment must be both objectively hostile, meaning one "a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive," and subjectively perceived as abusive by the employee.

Harris also listed what courts weigh: "the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance," with "no single factor" required. The EEOC's harassment page summarizes the same line: "Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality." That page carries a notice that its contents are being reviewed and will be revised.

The conduct must be tied to a protected trait. In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), the Court held that harassment between people of the same sex can be sex discrimination, and also that Title VII "does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace." It reaches harassment because of sex or another protected trait, not rudeness in general.

Who federal law covers

Title VII applies to an employer "who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year," plus its agents. The definition excludes the United States, corporations wholly owned by it, and Indian tribes, among others (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)).

Other federal statutes use the same "terms, conditions, or privileges" language for other traits:

• Age: the Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers 40 and older and applies to employers with 20 or more employees (29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1), 630(b), 631(a)).
• Disability: the Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination in the "terms, conditions, and privileges of employment" against a qualified individual on the basis of disability (42 U.S.C. 12112(a)).
• Genetic information: GINA bars discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions or privileges because of genetic information (42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1(a)).
• Pregnancy accommodation: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires reasonable accommodation of known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions at employers with 15 or more employees (42 U.S.C. 2000gg(2)(B)(i), 2000gg-1). It is an accommodation statute rather than a harassment provision.
• Race: 42 U.S.C. 1981 guarantees the same right to make and enforce contracts, including "the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship," and its text sets no employee count. A section 1981 claim made possible by a post-1990 amendment carries the four-year federal catch-all limitations period (Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004)).

For employers below these thresholds, state law is the route, and the state table below shows how far down each state reaches.

When is the employer responsible?

Federal law sorts harassment by who did it.

Supervisors. In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), the Court held that an employer is subject to vicarious liability for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense with two elements: "(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." The EEOC's harassment page states that the employer is "automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action."

Who is a supervisor. Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), held that an employee is a supervisor for this purpose "if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim."

Coworkers. For sexual harassment between fellow employees, the EEOC's guideline makes an employer responsible "where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action" (29 C.F.R. 1604.11(d)); a footnote to the guideline states that its principles continue to apply to race, color, religion or national origin.

Non-employees. An employer "may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees," such as customers or vendors, on the same knew-or-should-have-known basis when it "fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action" (29 C.F.R. 1604.11(e)). The old supervisor paragraph, 1604.11(c), was rescinded in 1999 after Faragher and Ellerth and is now reserved.

Individuals. Title VII's unlawful-practice clause is addressed to "an employer," defined by headcount. For race claims, federal appeals courts have held that individuals may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1981 when there is an affirmative link between the individual and the discriminatory action (Whidbee v. Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc., 223 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000)). Otherwise, whether the person who harassed can be held personally liable is mainly a question of state law, covered state by state below.

Retaliation

Title VII separately bars an employer from discriminating against an employee or applicant "because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in" a proceeding under it (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)).

In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), the Court held that the challenged action must be "materially adverse," which "means it well might have 'dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'" State acts have their own retaliation rules, covered on the state pages (Wyoming's Fair Employment Practices Act contains no retaliation clause), and a firing after a complaint is covered on the wrongful termination pages.

Federal deadlines: the 180/300-day rule

Before suing under the federal laws the EEOC enforces, an employee must file a charge with the EEOC; the EEOC states that those laws, "except for the Equal Pay Act, require you to file a charge before you can file a lawsuit." The EEOC's time-limits page states: "In general, you need to file a charge within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis" (see also 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1)). For age discrimination, the same page says the deadline is extended to 300 days only if a state law prohibits age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforces it, not where only a local law does.

For harassment, the same page says the charge is due "within 180 or 300 days of the last incident of harassment," and that the EEOC "will look at all incidents of harassment when investigating your charge, even if the earlier incidents happened more than 180/300 days earlier." The Supreme Court reached the same result in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002): "Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered," because hostile environment claims "are different in kind from discrete acts."

Which deadline applies depends on the state. The EEOC publishes the list of state and local fair employment practices agencies on its website and directs people to their nearest field office's list (29 C.F.R. 1601.71(a)). When a charge is filed with an agency that has a worksharing agreement, "the charge also will be automatically filed with the other agency," which the EEOC calls dual filing. Minnesota is an exception to watch: its Department of Human Rights states that since October 1, 2025 it no longer automatically cross-files with the EEOC.

The state pages give what each state's EEOC office says. The EEOC's Birmingham District Office, for example, states a 180-day charge deadline in Alabama and Mississippi, which have no state fair-employment agency, while the EEOC's Atlanta office states a 300-day deadline in Georgia for employers with 15 or more employees.

After the EEOC issues a notice, "within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought" (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1)). The EEOC also notes that its time limits generally are not extended while an employee pursues an internal grievance, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation. Federal employees follow a different process and must contact an agency EEO counselor within 45 days (29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a)(1)).

Sexual orientation and gender identity

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), held that "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Bostock was a firing case.

The EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance applied that reasoning to harassment. On May 15, 2025, a federal court in Texas vacated the guidance's sections defining sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity and its section on harassment based on those traits (Texas v. EEOC, No. 2:24-cv-173-Z (N.D. Tex.)). The court held that the EEOC "exceeded its statutory authority by issuing Enforcement Guidance requiring bathroom, dress, and pronoun accommodations." The EEOC's harassment page still lists "sex (including sexual orientation, transgender status, or pregnancy)" beneath its review notice.

How far federal hostile-environment law reaches these traits is therefore unsettled. Many state acts name sexual orientation and gender identity expressly, and the state pages list each state's protected traits.

NDAs, arbitration and settlements under federal law

Three federal laws reach harassment-related agreements.

• Speak Out Act (2022). "With respect to a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute, no nondisclosure clause or nondisparagement clause agreed to before the dispute arises shall be judicially enforceable in instances in which conduct is alleged to have violated Federal, Tribal, or State law" (Pub. L. 117-224, sec. 4(a)). It reaches only clauses signed before the dispute; states may enforce laws at least as protective.
• Ending Forced Arbitration Act (2022). At the election of the person alleging a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute, no predispute arbitration agreement or joint-action waiver is valid or enforceable for a case under federal, tribal or state law relating to that dispute (9 U.S.C. 402(a)). It applies to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after March 3, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-90, sec. 3), and a court, not an arbitrator, decides whether it applies (9 U.S.C. 402(b)). It is triggered by a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute and reaches a case that relates to that dispute; a harassment claim based only on race, age or another trait does not trigger it.
• Tax deduction. An employer cannot deduct "any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement," or the related attorney's fees (26 U.S.C. 162(q)).

The EEOC harassment guidance in 2026

The EEOC approved its "Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace" by a 3-2 vote in 2024. After the Texas court vacated parts of it in May 2025, the Commission voted 2-1 on January 22, 2026 to rescind the guidance in full.

Announcing the vote, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said: "Rescinding this guidance does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment. Federal employment laws against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting those laws, remain firmly in place." Title VII, the other statutes above, 29 C.F.R. 1604.11 and the Supreme Court decisions are unchanged; a guidance document is the EEOC's reading of those laws, not a law itself.

How state harassment laws differ

Every state but four has a fair-employment act that reaches workplace harassment, but the acts differ on almost every practical question. The groups below are drawn from the 51-row table further down.

States with no private-sector harassment statute

Four states have no state statute against harassment by private employers: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina. In those states, federal law is the main route for private-sector employees. Each still has narrower laws:

• Alabama protects workers 40 and over from age discrimination at employers with 20 or more employees and requires equal pay regardless of sex or race (Ala. Code 25-1-20 to 25-1-29, 25-1-30).
• Georgia's Fair Employment Practices Act covers only state government employment.
• Mississippi has a sex-based equal pay act for employers with five or more employees; bills to create a state sexual harassment claim died in committee in 2025 and 2026.
• North Carolina's Equal Employment Practices Act is a declaration of public policy for employers with 15 or more employees, and no section of it creates a claim; a separate disability statute and a state-employee grievance process exist.

Which employers are covered

The employer threshold is often the most important state difference, because Title VII stops at 15 employees.

• One employee or any size (19 states and D.C.): Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin. Maryland's one-employee rule applies once an employee files a complaint alleging harassment, with 15 for other claims. North Dakota counts employers with one or more employees for more than one quarter of the year.
• Sexual harassment at one employee, other harassment at 15 (2 states): Arizona and Texas.
• 2 to 12 employees (19 states): Wyoming (2); Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island (4); Idaho and Virginia (5, Virginia since July 1, 2026, plus any employer of a domestic worker); Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri and New Hampshire (6); Kentucky, Tennessee and Washington (8); Arkansas (9); and West Virginia (12).
• 15 employees, like Title VII (5 states): Florida, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah.
• 20 employees (1 state): Louisiana, whose law also excludes private educational and religious institutions and nonprofit corporations.

Four states set a lower headcount for harassment than for other discrimination: California (one employee for harassment, five for discrimination), Arizona and Texas (one for sexual harassment, 15 otherwise) and Maryland (one once a harassment complaint is filed, 15 otherwise). Illinois drops its 20-week requirement for sexual harassment claims. In the other direction, Indiana's disability chapter and Kentucky's commission use 15 employees for disability claims, and Oregon uses six.

Massachusetts has a second route: G.L. c. 214, § 1C gives every person a right to be free from sexual harassment, enforceable in superior court, which reaches beyond Chapter 151B's six-employee employers.

The legal standard: severe or pervasive, or less

Five jurisdictions have written a lower standard into statute:

• New York: harassment is unlawful "regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive," subject to a defense for petty slights or trivial inconveniences (Exec. Law 296(1)(h)).
• Colorado: for practices on or after August 7, 2023, harassment need not be severe or pervasive; it must be subjectively offensive to the complainant and objectively offensive to a reasonable member of the same protected class (C.R.S. 24-34-402(1.3)(a)).
• District of Columbia: conduct "need not be severe or pervasive to constitute harassment," and a single incident or conduct outside the workplace may qualify (D.C. Code 2-1402.11(c-2)).
• Maryland: harassment is unwelcome and offensive conduct "which need not be severe or pervasive," judged on the totality of the circumstances (State Gov't 20-601).
• Vermont: since July 1, 2023, harassment need not be severe or pervasive, notwithstanding contrary precedent; petty slights and trivial inconveniences are excluded (21 V.S.A. 495(k)).

California takes a narrower step: a single incident of harassing conduct can create a triable issue of a hostile work environment (Gov. Code 12923(b)). Wisconsin goes the other way and writes the severe-or-pervasive test into its statute for sexual and gender harassment (Wis. Stat. 111.36(1)(b), (br)).

Many other states apply the federal severe-or-pervasive test through their courts or agencies. Examples include Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia (state supreme court decisions) and Indiana, Nevada and Oregon (agency guidance or rules). New Jersey's courts judge conduct from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the complainant's protected group and have held a single remark can be enough in particular circumstances; Minnesota's court said a single, severe incident may support a claim.

Can the harasser be held personally liable?

Individual liability varies more than any other rule.

• Yes, directly (6 states): California, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Washington and West Virginia. California makes an employee who harasses personally liable whether or not the employer knew (Gov. Code 12940(j)(3)). Illinois treats sexual harassment by an employee or agent as a violation. Michigan's Supreme Court held that an agent may be sued individually; Washington's held that supervisors can be liable along with employers; West Virginia's held that suits against supervisors are not barred; and New Mexico's rejected the view that there can be no individual liability, while requiring the person to be named in the agency complaint first.
• Through an aiding-and-abetting clause (13 states and D.C.): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania. These acts make it unlawful for any person, in several of them "whether an employer or an employee or not," to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce a violation. New Hampshire's Supreme Court has held that individual employees may be liable for aiding and abetting, though not where the employer committed no unlawful practice.
• No, under the state act (6 states): Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Rhode Island and Tennessee. Arkansas and Louisiana direct the suit against the employer; Missouri excludes individual employees from the definition of employer; Tennessee has barred individual liability since 2014; Rhode Island's Supreme Court held its aiding-and-abetting clause does not create individual liability for an employer's employees; and Nevada's chapter 613 names only employers, employment agencies and labor organizations and has no aiding-and-abetting clause.
• Split or unsettled (5 states): Hawaii (individuals are not liable as employers, and the aiding-and-abetting clause is undecided); Iowa (only a person with authority to correct or prevent the hostile environment); Maine (no individual liability under the Human Rights Act, but 39-A M.R.S. 104-A makes an employee, supervisor, officer or director liable for sexual harassment); Ohio (since April 15, 2021, claims against a supervisor, manager or other employee for the discrimination practices in R.C. 4112.02(A) to (F) are barred unless that person is the employer, while the retaliation and aiding-and-abetting clauses in R.C. 4112.02(I) and (J) are written for any person, and common-law claims are preserved); and Oklahoma (a federal appeals court, in an unpublished order, held a supervisor was not an employer under the act).

For the remaining states, the state page covers what the act says about individuals.

State agency deadlines

The state deadline is separate from the EEOC's 180 or 300 days. From shortest to longest:

• 180 days or six months (18 states): Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Kansas, Washington and Wyoming state the period as six months. Montana extends its 180 days to as long as 300 days when a grievance procedure is used; Washington allows one year for pregnancy discrimination.
• 300 days (13 states): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. Texas allows 300 days only for sexual harassment complaints; its other complaints are due in 180 days.
• One year or 365 days (7 jurisdictions): District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Rhode Island and West Virginia. Hawaii moved from 180 days to one year under Act 56, law since May 28, 2026.
• Two years (4 states): Illinois, Maryland, Ohio and Virginia. Maryland's two years applies to harassment complaints; its other employment complaints are due in 300 days. Virginia's two-year period took effect July 1, 2026.
• Three years (2 states): California and New York.
• Five years (1 state): Oregon, for complaints under ORS 659A.030 filed with the Bureau of Labor and Industries or in court.

Vermont lets a person sue directly within six years. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina have no state agency deadline for private-sector harassment: Arkansas sends claims straight to court, and the other four have no private-sector state charge.

Direct-suit states. In 14 jurisdictions a person can go to court without first filing with a state agency: Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Elsewhere, the agency step usually comes first. Idaho and Missouri make the agency complaint a condition of suing, Nevada's court requires the claim to go to the agency first, Utah makes its agency procedure the exclusive state remedy, Wisconsin's act provides an administrative process with no civil-action section, and Wyoming routes complaints through an agency hearing and judicial review.

Training mandates

Six states require private employers generally to provide harassment training:

• California: employers with 5 or more employees or contractors; 2 hours for supervisors and 1 hour for other employees every two years (Gov. Code 12950.1).
• Connecticut: employers with 3 or more employees give 2 hours to employees within six months of hire, refreshed at least every ten years; employers with fewer than 3 train supervisors (Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-54(15)).
• Delaware: employers with 50 or more employees in Delaware, within one year of hire and every two years after (19 Del. C. 711A(g)).
• Illinois: every employer, at least once a year (775 ILCS 5/2-109(C)), with added duties for restaurants and bars.
• Maine: employers with 15 or more employees, for new employees within one year of starting (26 M.R.S. 807(3)).
• New York: every employer, every year, plus a written prevention policy (Labor Law 201-g).

Four more have narrower rules: D.C. (businesses with an employee paid the tipped minimum wage), Iowa (alcohol licensees that employ 16- and 17-year-olds to sell or serve alcohol), Virginia (contractors on state contracts over $10,000 with more than five employees) and Washington (hotels, motels, retailers, security guard entities and property services contractors with isolated employees). Several states' training statutes reach only public employees, including Louisiana, Montana and Texas. Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont encourage training without requiring it.

Written-policy and notice duties

Five states require a written harassment policy: Massachusetts (every covered employer, with a copy to each employee every year), New York (every employer), Oregon (every employer), Rhode Island (employers with 50 or more) and Vermont (every employer). Notice duties are more common: Connecticut requires posting and an emailed notice to new employees, Delaware an information sheet for new employees, and Maine a poster and annual written notice. Colorado requires employers to keep a designated repository of harassment and discrimination complaints and to preserve personnel records for at least five years, and Rhode Island requires a written answer on the disposition of an internal harassment complaint.

NDAs, settlement confidentiality and arbitration

Seventeen states limit harassment NDAs or settlement confidentiality beyond the Speak Out Act: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. They take two main forms, and several states use both.

• Limits on gag terms in employment agreements. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington restrict or void nondisclosure terms in employment agreements or terms an employer requires to get or keep a job, with differing scope (some cover only sexual harassment or assault). Louisiana makes pre-dispute nondisclosure clauses on hostile work environment or sexual harassment judicially unenforceable.
• Limits in settlements. California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington limit or condition confidentiality and related terms in settlement agreements. New York allows a confidentiality term only at the complainant's preference, with up to 21 days to consider it and at least 7 days to revoke (Gen. Oblig. Law 5-336). Several states still let the settlement amount stay confidential.

Four states have narrower rules: Alabama (clauses barring disclosure of sexual abuse are void in agreements entered into, executed or amended on or after October 1, 2026), Arizona (a criminal-inquiry carve-out and a ban on public money for sexual harassment NDAs), Maryland (waivers of future sexual harassment claims are void) and West Virginia (a Human Rights Commission rule on confidentiality in waivers). On arbitration, Louisiana bars employer-required pre-dispute arbitration of workplace sexual harassment claims, Illinois voids a unilateral condition of employment that requires an employee to waive or arbitrate claims related to an unlawful employment practice to the extent it denies a substantive or procedural right or remedy, and New York voids prohibited mandatory arbitration clauses except where inconsistent with federal law. In the other 30 jurisdictions, the fair-employment statutes contain no general limit on harassment NDAs, though the federal Speak Out Act still applies.

Hair texture and protective hairstyles

At least 24 states write hair texture or protective hairstyles into their fair-employment law or a companion statute, usually by defining race to include them: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. New Hampshire's rule sits in a separate statute with its own private cause of action, and Pennsylvania's was added on November 25, 2025. D.C. protects personal appearance, which its law defines to include hair style.

The acts in Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming do not list hair texture or protective hairstyles.

Is workplace bullying illegal?

No state fair-employment act and no part of the D.C. Human Rights Act makes general workplace bullying unlawful. Each reaches harassment tied to a protected trait, and hostility unconnected to such a trait falls outside it. Wisconsin's Equal Rights Division puts it directly: "State law does not protect workers from general workplace harassment or bullying unconnected with some characteristic under the law."

A few narrower rules exist. Tennessee's Healthy Workplace Act provides a model abusive-conduct policy that an employer, including a private employer since 2019, may adopt; it does not make bullying unlawful. Utah requires abusive-conduct training for state executive branch employees, Virginia requires school boards to adopt policies prohibiting abusive work environments, and Washington imposes an abusive-conduct policy duty on long-term care employers. Some states also offer general harassment restraining orders that are not limited to the workplace.

Recent and upcoming changes

Several state rules changed in 2025 and 2026, and more take effect soon:

• In effect: Illinois made harassment based on the traits in its new harassment definition a civil rights violation (January 1, 2026). Hawaii gave one year to file with its commission (May 28, 2026). Virginia set its threshold at five employees and adopted a two-year complaint deadline (July 1, 2026). Florida set new court deadlines under its civil rights act (July 1, 2026). Indiana added Title VII rights to its definition of a discriminatory practice (July 1, 2026). Rhode Island removed its domestic-service exclusion (June 10, 2026). Tennessee moved complaints to the Attorney General's Civil Rights Enforcement Division after its commission ended on June 30, 2025. Montana tied "sex" in its Human Rights Act to a male-or-female definition in MCA 1-1-209 under SB 437, signed March 24, 2026, which plaintiffs in a pending Missoula County district court case have moved to challenge. Alabama voided clauses barring disclosure of sexual abuse in agreements entered into, executed or amended on or after October 1, 2026.
• Coming: Massachusetts adds a provision covering conduct by consumers of personal care attendant services on November 4, 2026. An amended version of Utah's NDA statute takes effect January 1, 2027. Washington's domestic-worker protections, including a ban on an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, start July 1, 2027. California adds anti-hate speech content to its required training beginning January 1, 2028.

Workplace harassment laws by state: comparison table

The table summarizes each state's rule. "State agency deadline" is the time to file with the state agency, not the EEOC. "Training mandate" refers to private employers. "Personal liability" is whether the individual who harassed can be liable under the state act; "See state page" means the state page covers it.

Related pages

• Wrongful termination laws: firing after a complaint, the full filing procedure, right-to-sue steps and remedies, state by state.
• At-will employment: when an employer may end employment and the exceptions.
• Can I record my boss harassing me?: consent rules for documenting harassment with a recording.
• Employment discrimination settlement calculator: an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Employer surveillance of employees, including those who complain, is covered state by state in the employee monitoring laws guide.

Disclaimer: This guide provides general legal information about federal and state workplace harassment laws in the United States. It is not legal advice. Laws change, deadlines can be short, and how a law applies depends on specific facts. For a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in the state where the work is performed, the EEOC, or the state fair-employment agency.

Last updated: 2026-10-21.

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as a hostile work environment?

Under Title VII, harassment because of a protected trait such as sex or race is unlawful when it is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, judged by a reasonable person and by how the employee perceived it (Meritor, 1986; Harris, 1993). Courts look at frequency, severity, whether it was threatening or humiliating, and whether it interfered with work. Some states set a lower bar: Colorado, D.C., Maryland, New York and Vermont say it need not be severe or pervasive.

Is workplace harassment illegal in every state?

Federal law (Title VII) applies in every state to employers with 15 or more employees. Four states (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and North Carolina) have no state statute against harassment by private employers, so federal law is the main route there.

Does state law cover small employers?

Often, yes. Nineteen states and D.C. reach employers with one employee or of any size, nineteen more set thresholds between 2 and 12 employees, and Arizona and Texas cover sexual harassment at one employee. Florida, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah use 15, and Louisiana uses 20.

How long do I have to file a harassment complaint?

An EEOC charge is generally due within 180 days, or 300 days where a state or local agency enforces a similar law, counted from the last incident in a harassment case. State agency deadlines range from 180 days or six months (for example Kansas, Washington and Wyoming) to two years (Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia), three years (California, New York) and five years (Oregon).

Which states require harassment training?

California (5 or more employees, every 2 years), Connecticut, Delaware (50 or more), Illinois (every employer, every year), Maine (15 or more, new employees) and New York (every employer, every year) require training of private employers generally. D.C., Iowa, Virginia and Washington have narrower rules for particular businesses or contractors.

Can my employer make me sign an NDA about harassment?

Under the federal Speak Out Act, a nondisclosure or nondisparagement clause agreed to before a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute arises is not judicially enforceable when the conduct is alleged to violate law. Seventeen states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington, add broader limits on harassment NDAs or settlement confidentiality.

Can I sue the harasser personally?

Title VII's unlawful-practice clause is written for an employer. For race harassment, federal appeals courts have held that individuals may be liable under 42 U.S.C. 1981 when personally linked to the discriminatory action. Under state law it varies: California makes an employee who harasses personally liable, states such as New Jersey and Oregon reach individuals who aid or abet a violation, and states such as Tennessee, Missouri and Rhode Island rule it out under the state act.

Is workplace bullying illegal?

Not as such. The state fair-employment acts reach harassment tied to a protected trait, not general bullying. Tennessee offers a voluntary model abusive-conduct policy, and Utah requires abusive-conduct training for state executive branch employees.

Is the EEOC harassment guidance still in effect?

No. The EEOC voted 2-1 on January 22, 2026 to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace, after a Texas federal court vacated parts of it in May 2025. Title VII, 29 C.F.R. 1604.11 and the Supreme Court's harassment decisions still apply.

Does federal law cover harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity?

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII. How far that reasoning reaches harassment claims is unsettled after a federal court vacated the EEOC guidance sections on it in 2025; many state acts name these traits expressly.