New Hampshire Workplace Harassment Laws: 6-Employee Rule (2026)

Sexual harassment at work is unlawful in New Hampshire: RSA 354-A:7, V, part of the state's Law Against Discrimination, states that "Harassment on the basis of sex constitutes unlawful sex discrimination." The law reaches employers with 6 or more persons in their employ, plus the state and its political subdivisions (RSA 354-A:2, VII), and harassment because of the other traits the chapter protects falls under its general ban on discrimination in the "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" (RSA 354-A:7, I).

The New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights takes complaints under the chapter. There is no separate, lower employer threshold for harassment: the 6-person rule that governs discrimination claims governs harassment claims too. 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 New Hampshire state law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors and coworkers under the Law Against Discrimination, RSA chapter 354-A (chiefly RSA 354-A:2, 354-A:7, 354-A:19, 354-A:21, 354-A:21-a, 354-A:23 and 354-A:25), with related sections in RSA chapters 275 and 141-H. It does not cover wrongful firing or the full complaint and lawsuit procedure (see New Hampshire wrongful termination), damages estimates, criminal harassment or stalking, harassment outside employment, or federal-employee procedure.

New Hampshire harassment rules at a glance

What New Hampshire law prohibits

New Hampshire's discrimination statute names harassment in terms, but only harassment on the basis of sex. RSA 354-A:7, V reads:

"V. Harassment on the basis of sex constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when: (a) Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (b) Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (c) Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." (RSA 354-A:7, V)

Prongs (a) and (b) describe what is often called quid pro quo harassment: submission to the conduct made a condition of the job, or submission or rejection used as the basis for employment decisions. Prong (c) is the hostile-environment prong. The statute's text sets no "severe or pervasive" test of its own and does not say that the conduct need not be severe or pervasive. When the New Hampshire Supreme Court first addressed employer liability for coworker harassment under the chapter, it said: "As this is an issue of first impression under RSA chapter 354-A, we rely upon cases developed under Title VII to aid in our analysis" (Madeja v. MPB Corp., 149 N.H. 371 (2003)). In the same opinion the court described a coworker sexual harassment claim as requiring harassment "sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment"; that test comes from the court, not from RSA 354-A:7, V.

For every other protected trait, the chapter has no harassment clause. A harassment claim on those grounds rests on RSA 354-A:7, I, which makes it unlawful "For an employer, because of the age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, or national origin of any individual ... to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification."

Which New Hampshire employers are covered

RSA 354-A:2, VII sets the coverage line, and it is the same for harassment as for every other employment claim under the chapter:

"VII. "Employer" does not include any employer with fewer than 6 persons in its employ, an exclusively social club, or a fraternal or religious association or corporation, if such club, association, or corporation is not organized for private profit ... "Employer" shall include the state and all political subdivisions, boards, departments, and commissions thereof."

Three practical points follow from the text:

• Small private employers: a private employer with fewer than 6 persons in its employ is outside the chapter.
• Government employers: the state and all its political subdivisions, boards, departments and commissions are covered.
• Excluded workers: under RSA 354-A:2, VI, "Employee" does not include "any individual employed by a parent, spouse or child, or any individual in the domestic service of any person."

The Commission's own employment page says a person is protected under RSA 354-A when the employer "has a minimum of 6 employees," the discrimination occurred within the past 180 days, and the person is not a federal employee and not an independent contractor. RSA 354-A:2, VI defines "Employee" only by listing who is excluded; it does not mention unpaid interns or volunteers.

Federal law draws a different line: Title VII applies to an employer with "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)), so an employer with 6 to 14 employees can be covered by RSA 354-A but not by Title VII. The workplace harassment laws hub covers the federal layer.

Protected traits in New Hampshire

RSA 354-A:7, I lists age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed and national origin, and adds that "no person shall be denied the benefit of the rights afforded by this paragraph on account of that person's sexual orientation." The chapter's definitions shape that list:

• Pregnancy: "For the purposes of this chapter, the word "sex" includes pregnancy and medical conditions which result from pregnancy" (RSA 354-A:7, VI(a)).
• Sexual orientation: "having or being perceived as having an orientation for heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality" (RSA 354-A:2, XIV-c).
• Gender identity: "a person's gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth" (RSA 354-A:2, XIV-e).
• National origin: "includes ancestry" (RSA 354-A:2, XII).

Three related protections sit outside RSA 354-A:

• Protective hairstyles (since September 1, 2024): RSA 275:37-e provides that "No person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment because he or she wears a protective hairstyle." A person subjected to that discrimination "shall have a private cause of action and shall be exempt from the jurisdiction of the human rights commission and the provisions of RSA 354-A," and the section "shall not apply to those employed by the department of corrections." A hairstyle claim therefore goes to court, not to the Commission.
• Genetic testing: RSA 141-H:3, I bars an employer from directly or indirectly using genetic testing to "Affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" or to terminate employment. The Commission's employment page lists genetic information among the classes it protects; the statutory list in RSA 354-A:7, I does not include it.
• Victims of violence or harassment: RSA 275:71 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire an otherwise qualified individual, or to "discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against" an individual with regard to promotion, compensation or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, "because the individual is a victim of domestic violence, harassment, sexual assault, or stalking."

Employer responsibility and the individual harasser

In Madeja v. MPB Corp., 149 N.H. 371 (2003), the New Hampshire Supreme Court, relying on Title VII case law, drew the line between two kinds of harassers: "While employer liability for sexual harassment by supervisors and managing agents is derivative or vicarious, employer liability for coworker sexual harassment is direct." On coworker harassment, the court said an employer "may be liable for co-worker sexual harassment of which it knew or should have known" and that "[t]he negligence standard of liability extends to both the employer's failure to discover and its failure to remedy co-worker sexual harassment." Discussing coworker retaliatory harassment, it said that "[a]s with a claim of co-worker sexual harassment," a plaintiff "must show that the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment." That standard comes from the court, not from the text of RSA 354-A:7, V.

On individual liability, the chapter's definition of an "unlawful discriminatory practice" includes "Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling or coercing another or attempting to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce another to commit an unlawful discriminatory practice" (RSA 354-A:2, XV(d)). In EEOC v. Fred Fuller Oil Co., 168 N.H. 606 (2016), answering questions certified by a federal court in a case alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that "individual employees may be liable for aiding and abetting discrimination in the workplace under RSA 354-A:2, XV(d) and RSA 354-A:7." The court added that "if there is no unlawful discriminatory practice by an employer, there can be no individual employee liability for aiding and abetting," and that an individual employee of an employer with fewer than six employees "would not have committed an unlawful discriminatory practice under RSA 354-A:2, XV(d)."

Retaliation for complaining

RSA 354-A:19 makes it "an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged in any activity to which this chapter applies to discharge, expel, or otherwise retaliate or discriminate against any person because he has opposed any practices forbidden under this chapter or because he has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding under this chapter." In Fred Fuller Oil, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted RSA 354-A:19 "as imposing liability for retaliation on individual employees in the workplace of a qualifying employer under the chapter." A firing after a complaint, and how it fits with New Hampshire's default employment rule, is covered on the New Hampshire at-will employment and New Hampshire wrongful termination pages.

Deadlines and where to file

The New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights accepts complaints under RSA 354-A.

• Commission deadline: "Any complaint filed pursuant to this section by an aggrieved person must be filed within 180 days after the alleged act of discrimination" (RSA 354-A:21, III). The chapter sets no separate deadline for harassment.
• Superior court: a party may sue "at the expiration of 180 days after the timely filing of a complaint with the commission, or sooner if the commission assents in writing, but not later than 3 years after the alleged unlawful practice occurred" (RSA 354-A:21-a, I). A superior court trial is not available once a Commission hearing has begun or concluded, or to a complainant whose charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause and who has not prevailed on appeal.
• Other lawsuits on the same grievance: the chapter's court route in RSA 354-A:21-a starts with a timely Commission complaint, and a party who files a superior court action under that section "shall be barred from bringing any subsequent complaint before the commission based upon the same alleged unlawful discriminatory practice" (RSA 354-A:21-a, II). Separately, under RSA 354-A:25, a person who "institutes any action based on such grievance without resorting to the procedure provided in this chapter ... may not subsequently resort to the procedure in this chapter."
• Federal charge: the Commission states that "If an employer has over 15 employees, the Commission will automatically dual file the Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC," and that where the employer is subject to federal law, a person who misses the 180-day state deadline has "300 days from the last date of discrimination to file a charge asserting federal claims."

The full procedure, including how a case moves from the Commission to court, is on the New Hampshire wrongful termination page, which also covers remedies; the New Hampshire employment discrimination settlement calculator is an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Training and written policies

RSA 354-A:23 requires every employer subject to the chapter to "post in a conspicuous place or places on his premises a notice to be prepared or approved by the commission, which shall set forth excerpts of this chapter and such other relevant information which the commission deems necessary to explain the chapter."

That posting duty is the chapter's workplace-notice rule. Neither RSA 354-A nor the workplace-discrimination sections of RSA chapter 275 require private employers to provide harassment training.

NDAs, confidentiality and arbitration

RSA 354-A contains no provision limiting nondisclosure, confidentiality or arbitration terms in harassment agreements or settlements. 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; the workplace harassment laws hub explains both.

Is workplace bullying illegal in New Hampshire?

RSA 354-A reaches harassment because of the traits it lists. It contains no provision on general workplace bullying that is not tied to one of those traits, such as hostility aimed at an employee for reasons unrelated to sex, race, disability or another protected characteristic. RSA 275:71, described above, protects an employee who is a victim of harassment from adverse employer action because of that status; it does not create a general anti-bullying rule.

Documenting harassment and workplace monitoring

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

Recent changes to New Hampshire harassment law

• 2018: the chapter's definitions section, including the gender identity definition in RSA 354-A:2, XIV-e, carries amendments by 2018, 176, effective July 8, 2018.
• 2019: RSA 354-A:7 was last amended by 2019, 332:22, effective October 15, 2019.
• 2024: 2024, 117:2 enacted RSA 275:37-e on protective hairstyles, effective September 1, 2024.
• 2025: RSA 354-A:35 to 354-A:38 (2024, 359:2, effective January 1, 2025) require the authorities enforcing the chapter, when a complaint alleges conduct targeting a person's actual or perceived connection to Jewish identity, to "take into consideration the definition of antisemitism" adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in assessing antisemitic intent. RSA 354-A:37, IV states that the subdivision does not "alter the evidentiary requirements pursuant to which an agency or department makes a determination that conduct, including harassment, amounts to actionable discrimination."

Related pages

• Workplace harassment laws by state
• New Hampshire wrongful termination
• New Hampshire at-will employment laws
• New Hampshire employee monitoring laws
• New Hampshire workplace recording laws
• Massachusetts workplace harassment laws
• Vermont workplace harassment laws

This article provides general legal information about New Hampshire workplace harassment law under RSA chapter 354-A and related statutes as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in New Hampshire or the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is sexual harassment illegal in New Hampshire?

Yes. RSA 354-A:7, V provides that harassment on the basis of sex constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, for employers with 6 or more persons in their employ and for the state and its political subdivisions (RSA 354-A:2, VII).

What counts as a hostile work environment in New Hampshire?

Under RSA 354-A:7, V(c), unwelcome sexual conduct is sexual harassment when it has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has said it relies on Title VII case law in applying the chapter, and in Madeja v. MPB Corp. (2003) it described a coworker sexual harassment claim as requiring harassment sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment; that test comes from the court, not from the statute's text.

How many employees does an employer need for New Hampshire harassment law to apply?

Six. RSA 354-A:2, VII excludes employers with fewer than 6 persons in their employ, and the same threshold applies to harassment and discrimination claims. The state and all its political subdivisions are covered regardless of size.

How long do you have to file a harassment complaint in New Hampshire?

A complaint with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights must be filed within 180 days after the alleged act of discrimination (RSA 354-A:21, III). A superior court action must be brought not later than 3 years after the alleged unlawful practice, and only after the steps in RSA 354-A:21-a.

Does New Hampshire require sexual harassment training?

RSA 354-A sets no harassment training requirement for private employers. It does require every covered employer to post a notice prepared or approved by the Commission for Human Rights (RSA 354-A:23).

Is hair discrimination illegal at work in New Hampshire?

RSA 275:37-e, effective September 1, 2024, provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment because he or she wears a protective hairstyle. The claim is a private cause of action outside the Commission's jurisdiction, and the section does not apply to Department of Corrections employees.

Can an individual employee be personally liable for harassment in New Hampshire?

In EEOC v. Fred Fuller Oil Co. (2016), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that individual employees may be liable for aiding and abetting discrimination in the workplace under RSA 354-A:2, XV(d) and RSA 354-A:7, and that RSA 354-A:19 imposes liability for retaliation on individual employees in the workplace of a qualifying employer. The court said there is no individual aiding-and-abetting liability without an unlawful discriminatory practice by an employer, and the chapter does not reach employers with fewer than 6 persons in their employ (RSA 354-A:2, VII).

Is it illegal to retaliate against an employee for reporting harassment in New Hampshire?

RSA 354-A:19 makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person engaged in an activity the chapter covers to discharge, expel or otherwise retaliate against a person for opposing a forbidden practice or for filing a complaint, testifying or assisting in a proceeding under the chapter.