D.C. Workplace Harassment Laws: No Severe or Pervasive Test (2026)

Workplace harassment is an unlawful discriminatory practice in the District of Columbia under D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(c-2), which reaches harassment based on any characteristic the D.C. Human Rights Act protects, including sexual harassment. The statute states that conduct "need not be severe or pervasive to constitute harassment," and the act applies to any person who, for compensation, employs an individual, with no minimum number of employees (§ 2-1401.02(10)).

The harassment subsection has applied since October 1, 2022, under D.C. Law 24-172. The D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) takes complaints, and a complainant may instead sue directly in court. For other states, see workplace harassment laws by state.

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

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers District of Columbia law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors and coworkers under the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq., chiefly §§ 2-1401.02, 2-1402.11, 2-1402.61, 2-1402.62, 2-1403.04, 2-1403.16 and 2-1411.05a. It does not cover wrongful firing or the full complaint and lawsuit procedure (see District of Columbia wrongful termination), damages estimates, criminal harassment or stalking, harassment outside employment, the District government's internal procedures for its own employees, or federal-employee procedure.

D.C. harassment rules at a glance

What D.C. law prohibits

The District's harassment clause covers every protected characteristic, not only sex. Section 2-1402.11(c-2)(1) provides: "It shall further be an unlawful discriminatory practice to engage in harassment based on one or more protected characteristics specified in subsection (a), including sexual harassment." The act's definition of "unlawful discriminatory practice" likewise "shall include harassment engaged in for discriminatory reasons specified in § 2-1402.11(a)" (§ 2-1401.02(31)).

The statute defines both terms:

"(A) 'Harassment' means conduct, whether direct or indirect, verbal or nonverbal, that unreasonably alters an individual's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. (B) 'Sexual harassment' means: (i) Any conduct of a sexual nature or that is based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression that constitutes harassment as defined in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and (ii) Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature where submission to the conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or where submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for an employment decision affecting the individual's employment." (D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(c-2)(2))

Part (B)(ii) describes quid pro quo harassment. Part (A), carried into (B)(i), describes a hostile work environment.

The D.C. standard: not "severe or pervasive"

The District's statute rejects a severe-or-pervasive threshold in express terms. Section 2-1402.11(c-2)(3) provides that a finder of fact "shall consider the totality of the circumstances and view conduct based on multiple protected characteristics in totality, rather than in isolation," and that:

"Conduct need not be severe or pervasive to constitute harassment and no specific number of incidents or specific level of egregiousness is required." (D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(c-2)(3))

The statute lists factors the finder of fact considers, adding that the list "shall not be considered exhaustive, and the presence or absence of any single factor shall not be determinative":

• the frequency of the conduct;
• the duration of the conduct;
• the location where the conduct occurred;
• whether the conduct involved threats, slurs, epithets, stereotypes, or humiliating or degrading conduct; and
• whether any party to the conduct held a position of formal authority over or informal power relative to another party.

Section 2-1402.11(c-2)(4) then provides that the finder of fact "may find that conduct constitutes unlawful harassment regardless of" these circumstances: the conduct was a single incident; it was directed toward a person other than the complainant; the complainant submitted to or participated in it; the complainant was able to complete employment responsibilities despite it; it did not cause tangible physical or psychological injury; it occurred outside the workplace; or it "was not overtly directed toward a protected characteristic." The word is "may": these circumstances do not prevent a finding of harassment, and the statute leaves the finding to the finder of fact.

Which D.C. employers are covered

The D.C. Human Rights Act sets no minimum number of employees. Section 2-1401.02(10) defines employer as "any person who, for compensation, employs an individual, except for the employer's parent, spouse, or children, engaged in work in and about the employer's household; any person acting in the interest of such employer, directly or indirectly; and any professional association." The same definition governs harassment and other discrimination claims under the act.

Who is protected

The current text of § 2-1401.02(9) provides that "'Employee' means an individual employed by or seeking employment from an employer. The term 'employee' includes an unpaid intern and an individual working or seeking work as an independent contractor." The definition adds that "the term 'independent contractor' does not mean a service vendor who provides a discrete service to an individual customer."

So the act reaches job applicants, unpaid interns and independent contractors, in addition to employees.

Protected characteristics in D.C.

Section 2-1402.11(a) protects against discrimination based on the "actual or perceived" characteristics it lists, and the harassment clause reaches every one of them:

• race, color, religion and national origin;
• sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression;
• age (defined as "18 years of age or older," § 2-1401.02(2));
• marital status and family responsibilities;
• personal appearance (defined to include manner or style of personal grooming, "including, but not limited to, hair style and beards," but not cleanliness, uniform or prescribed standards uniformly applied to a class of employees for a reasonable business purpose, § 2-1401.02(22));
• genetic information and disability;
• matriculation and political affiliation;
• status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking;
• credit information; and
• homeless status.

Section 2-1402.11(a)(1)(B) separately addresses pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and reproductive health decisions in employment.

The section also protects the privacy of victims. An employer may not disclose information an employee provides about the employee's "status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking," except, among other listed exceptions, where the employee requests or voluntarily authorizes the disclosure in writing or a court or administrative agency orders it or the law otherwise requires it (§ 2-1402.11(c-1)(3)).

Employer responsibility and the individual harasser

The D.C. Human Rights Act does not set out, in its own text, when an employer is responsible for harassment by a supervisor, a coworker or a non-employee. An early D.C. Court of Appeals decision on harassment under the act is Howard University v. Best, 484 A.2d 958 (D.C. 1984), which held "that a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of sexual harassment upon demonstrating that unwelcome verbal and/or physical advances of a sexual nature were directed at him/her in the workplace, resulting in a hostile or abusive working environment." The court described the test as "essentially a balancing test, in which the trier of fact should consider, inter alia, the amount and nature of the conduct, the plaintiffs response to such conduct, and the relationship between the harassing party and the plaintiff." The decision predates the 2022 harassment subsection, whose standard is now in the statute.

On personal liability, two provisions bear on the question. The definition of employer includes "any person acting in the interest of such employer, directly or indirectly" (§ 2-1401.02(10)), and § 2-1402.62 makes it "an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, invite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under the provisions of this chapter or to attempt to do so." In Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 715 A.2d 873 (D.C. 1998), a discrimination case decided before the 2022 harassment subsection, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that law-firm partners "fall within the ambit of the statute" under the "acting in the interest of such employer" language, and stated that if the firm "unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff as alleged, then the partners who carried out the allegedly discriminatory acts aided and abetted the employer's discrimination."

Retaliation for complaining

Section 2-1402.61(a) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice "to coerce, threaten, retaliate against, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected under this chapter." How a firing after a complaint fits with the District's default employment rule is covered on the District of Columbia at-will employment and District of Columbia wrongful termination pages.

Deadlines and where to file

The District offers two routes, and a complainant does not have to use the agency first. Harassment complaints follow the same deadlines as other discrimination complaints under the act.

• Office of Human Rights: "Any complaint under this chapter shall be filed with the Office within 1 year of the occurrence of the unlawful discriminatory practice, or the discovery thereof" (§ 2-1403.04(a)). OHR's complaint-process page tells complainants to "submit an intake questionnaire within one year of the alleged discriminatory act." All complaints are mediated before OHR begins a full investigation, and OHR grants the parties up to 45 days to mediate (§ 2-1403.04(c)).
• Court: "a private cause of action brought pursuant to this unit shall be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within 2 years after the unlawful discriminatory act, or the discovery thereof" (§ 2-1403.16(b)(1)). D.C. Law 25-300 lengthened this period from 1 year; OHR states that the act's changes "did not go into effect until the law was funded" and that it "began enforcing the new provisions of the Fairness Act on October 1, 2025." Neither § 2-1403.16 nor OHR's fact sheet says how the longer period applies to acts that occurred before the change took effect.
• Tolling: a timely OHR complaint tolls the time to sue "until after the Office has served a notice of right to file a civil action on the complainant" (§ 2-1403.16(b)(2)).
• One complaint, one forum: "No person who maintains, in a court of competent jurisdiction, any action based upon an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this unit may file the same complaint with the Office" (§ 2-1403.16(e)).
• Federal charge: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to employers with 15 or more employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)), and the EEOC states that its "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." The EEOC's Washington Field Office states that a charge against a D.C. employer with 15 or more employees may be filed within 300 days, except that charges against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the D.C. Courts and foreign embassies or consulates must be filed within 180 days of the alleged harm.

The full procedure, and the remedies OHR and the courts can order under §§ 2-1403.13 and 2-1403.16, are on the District of Columbia wrongful termination page. The District of Columbia employment discrimination settlement calculator is an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Harassment training: businesses with tipped workers

The harassment training mandate in Chapter 14 is narrow. Section 2-1411.05a applies to "businesses that employ an employee who is paid in accordance with § 32-1003(f)," the tipped minimum wage provision. For those businesses:

• Employees: "Each employee shall receive training either in person or online no later than 90 days after hire, unless the employee has participated in training within the past 2 years" (§ 2-1411.05a(b)(1)).
• Managers: "Managers shall attend training in person or online at least once every 2 years" (§ 2-1411.05a(b)(3)).
• Owners and operators: they "shall attend training either in person or online at least once every 2 years" (§ 2-1411.05a(c)).

The same section requires those businesses to file and post a sexual harassment reporting policy and to report annual counts to OHR (§ 2-1411.05a(f)). Chapter 14 contains no harassment training mandate for private employers that do not employ a tipped-minimum-wage employee.

NDAs, confidentiality and arbitration

Chapter 14 of Title 2, which holds the D.C. Human Rights Act and the related human rights units, contains no provision limiting nondisclosure, confidentiality or mandatory arbitration terms about harassment. The confidentiality rule in § 2-1402.11(c-1)(3) runs the other way: it bars an employer from disclosing an employee's victim status.

Federal law adds limits for sexual harassment disputes: the Speak Out Act makes nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses agreed to before a sexual harassment dispute arises judicially unenforceable where the conduct is alleged to violate federal, tribal or state law, and the Ending Forced Arbitration Act lets the person alleging sexual harassment elect court over a predispute arbitration agreement, both explained on the workplace harassment laws hub.

Is workplace bullying illegal in D.C.?

The harassment subsection reaches harassment "based on one or more protected characteristics." Chapter 14 contains no provision on general workplace bullying that is not based on a protected characteristic. Once harassment based on a protected characteristic is at issue, though, § 2-1402.11(c-2)(4)(G) allows the finder of fact to find unlawful harassment even if the conduct "was not overtly directed toward a protected characteristic."

Documenting harassment and workplace monitoring

The District's rules on recording a conversation at work, including a conversation with a harasser, are on the District of Columbia workplace recording laws page. Employer monitoring of email, devices and workspaces is covered on the District of Columbia employee monitoring laws page.

Recent changes to D.C. harassment law

• 2018: D.C. Law 22-196 enacted the tipped-worker training rules in § 2-1411.05a, later amended by D.C. Law 25-217 (2024).
• 2022: D.C. Law 24-172, the Human Rights Enhancement Amendment Act of 2022, added the harassment subsection, § 2-1402.11(c-2), with the not-severe-or-pervasive standard. The act took effect September 21, 2022 and applies as of October 1, 2022.
• 2025: D.C. Law 25-300, the Fairness in Human Rights Administration Amendment Act, lengthened the court deadline to 2 years (§ 2-1403.16(b)(1)) and amended the definition of sexual harassment in § 2-1402.11(c-2)(2)(B)(i). Its stated effective date was March 21, 2025; OHR began enforcing its new provisions on October 1, 2025.

Related pages

• Workplace harassment laws by state
• District of Columbia wrongful termination
• District of Columbia at-will employment laws
• District of Columbia employee monitoring laws
• District of Columbia workplace recording laws

This article provides general legal information about District of Columbia workplace harassment law under the D.C. Human Rights Act as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in the District of Columbia or the D.C. Office of Human Rights.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is workplace harassment illegal in Washington, D.C.?

Yes. D.C. Code § 2-1402.11(c-2)(1) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice to engage in harassment based on one or more protected characteristics listed in § 2-1402.11(a), including sexual harassment.

Does harassment have to be severe or pervasive under D.C. law?

No. Section 2-1402.11(c-2)(3) states that conduct need not be severe or pervasive to constitute harassment and that no specific number of incidents or level of egregiousness is required; the finder of fact considers the totality of the circumstances.

Does D.C. harassment law apply to small employers?

Yes. An employer under the D.C. Human Rights Act is any person who, for compensation, employs an individual, other than the employer's parent, spouse or children working in and about the employer's household (§ 2-1401.02(10)). The act sets no minimum number of employees.

How long do you have to file a harassment complaint in D.C.?

A complaint to the Office of Human Rights must be filed within 1 year of the unlawful discriminatory practice or its discovery (§ 2-1403.04(a)). A private lawsuit must be filed within 2 years of the act or its discovery (a period lengthened from 1 year by D.C. Law 25-300, whose changes OHR began enforcing on October 1, 2025), and a timely OHR complaint tolls that period until OHR serves a notice of right to file a civil action (§ 2-1403.16(b)).

Are independent contractors protected from harassment in D.C.?

The current text of § 2-1401.02(9) defines employee to include an unpaid intern and an individual working or seeking work as an independent contractor. It excludes a service vendor who provides a discrete service to an individual customer.

Does D.C. require sexual harassment training?

The training mandate in § 2-1411.05a applies to businesses that employ an employee paid the tipped minimum wage under § 32-1003(f). Chapter 14 contains no training mandate for other private employers.

Does D.C. limit NDAs in harassment settlements?

Chapter 14 of Title 2, which holds the D.C. Human Rights Act, contains no provision limiting nondisclosure, confidentiality or arbitration terms about harassment. Federal limits for sexual harassment disputes are explained on the workplace harassment laws hub.

Is workplace bullying illegal in D.C.?

The harassment subsection reaches harassment based on the protected characteristics listed in § 2-1402.11(a). Chapter 14 contains no provision on general workplace bullying that is not based on a protected characteristic, although § 2-1402.11(c-2)(4)(G) allows a finding of harassment where the conduct was not overtly directed toward a protected characteristic.