Can I Sue My Boss Personally for Harassment or Discrimination in New York?

It depends on which law you use. Under federal law you cannot hold a supervisor personally liable under Title VII; under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), individuals may incur liability for their own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting, and for retaliation, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) reaches "any person" through its aiding-and-abetting and retaliation provisions.⁠^[1][4][3]

"Personally liable" means the individual, and not only the company, is legally responsible.⁠^[4] That is a different question from whether the employer answers for what a supervisor did, which each layer decides under its own rules and which is covered in the guide on supervisor versus coworker harassment and employer liability.

The short version under each layer

Question	Federal law	New York State (NYSHRL)	New York City (NYCHRL)
Is a supervisor personally liable as the "employer"?	No. Individual defendants with supervisory control may not be held personally liable under Title VII.⁠[1]	No. The Court of Appeals has said the State law does not render employees liable as individual employers.⁠[2]	No. Shareholders, agents, limited partners and employees of a business entity are not employers under the City law.⁠[6]
Is an individual liable for his or her own discriminatory conduct?	Not under Title VII; for race, individuals may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 if personally involved.⁠[7][5]	The statute reaches individuals through its aiding-and-abetting and retaliation provisions.⁠[3]	Yes. Individuals may incur liability for their own discriminatory conduct.⁠[4]
Aiding and abetting	No Title VII claim against individuals.⁠[7]	Any person who aids, abets, incites, compels or coerces a forbidden act, or attempts to.⁠[3]	Any person who aids, abets, incites, compels or coerces a forbidden act, or attempts to.⁠[8]
Retaliation by an individual	No Title VII claim against individuals.⁠[7]	The retaliation subdivision applies to any person engaged in any activity to which the section applies.⁠[3]	"Any person" is forbidden to retaliate; individuals may incur liability for retaliation.⁠[9][4]

Federal law: no individual liability under Title VII

Title VII is written in terms of what an "employer" may not do.⁠^[10] In Tomka v. Seiler Corp. (1995), the Second Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers New York, held that individual defendants with supervisory control over a plaintiff may not be held personally liable under Title VII.⁠^[1] The court restated the point in 2004: Title VII claims are not cognizable against individuals.⁠^[7]

A federal Title VII claim is therefore a claim against the employer, and Title VII covers an employer only if it has 15 or more employees.⁠^[1][11]

The federal exception for race: 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Section 1981 is a separate federal civil rights statute that protects the right to make and enforce contracts, including the terms and conditions of an employment relationship, on the same basis as white citizens.⁠^[12][13] The Second Circuit has held that individuals may be held liable under § 1981, but only where there is some affirmative link that causally connects the person to the discriminatory action; a claim for personal liability has to be predicated on the person's personal involvement.⁠^[5]

Section 1981 is limited in other ways. Its text speaks of race and does not mention sex, religion, age or disability.⁠^[12] In the Second Circuit, § 1981 does not provide a separate private right of action against state actors; such claims against a government employer go through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.⁠^[14] The guide on hostile environments based on race and other characteristics has more on § 1981.

New York State law: not as an "employer," but through aiding and abetting and retaliation

The "employer" route is closed

A number of courts had read the State Human Rights Law to make a manager with an ownership interest, or with power over personnel decisions, personally liable as an "employer." In Doe v. Bloomberg L.P. (2021), the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, said that reading misinterprets its 1984 decision in Patrowich v. Chemical Bank, and that Patrowich held that the State Human Rights Law does not render employees liable as individual employers.⁠^[2]

Common mistake. "A manager who can hire and fire is an employer under the State Human Rights Law and can be sued personally on that basis." The Court of Appeals in 2021 called the "ownership/personnel decisions" test a misinterpretation of its precedent as applied to the State law.⁠^[2]

Aiding and abetting: Executive Law § 296(6)

The NYSHRL contains a provision that is not limited to employers. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(6), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under the statute, or to attempt to do so.⁠^[3] The statute defines "person" to include individuals.⁠^[15]

This guide does not describe how courts apply that provision to particular facts, such as whether a person can aid and abet his or her own conduct or what has to be shown about the employer first. Those are questions for a lawyer.

Retaliation: Executive Law § 296(7)

The State's retaliation subdivision, Executive Law § 296(7), is also not limited to employers: it applies to any person engaged in any activity to which the section applies.⁠^[3][16] The guide on workplace retaliation in New York covers what counts as protected activity and as retaliation.

New York City law: liability for your own conduct, aiding and abetting, and retaliation

The City statute is worded differently from the federal one. Its core employment prohibition makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for "an employer or an employee or agent thereof" to discriminate in hiring, firing, or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of a protected characteristic.⁠^[17]

In Doe v. Bloomberg L.P., the Court of Appeals drew the line for the City law in two steps. First, where the employer is a business entity, its shareholders, agents, limited partners and employees are not "employers" within the meaning of the City Human Rights Law.⁠^[6] Second, those individuals "may incur liability only for their own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting such conduct by others, or for retaliation against protected conduct."⁠^[4]

So under the City law there are three routes to an individual:

• The individual's own discriminatory conduct. A supervisor, owner or coworker who personally discriminates or harasses can incur liability for that conduct.⁠^[4][17]
• Aiding and abetting. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any act forbidden under the City law, or to attempt to do so.⁠^[8]
• Retaliation. The City law forbids any person to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against someone because of protected activity, such as opposing a forbidden practice or filing a complaint.⁠^[9]

What the City law does not do is make an owner or executive personally answerable for other people's conduct simply because of his or her position: the Court of Appeals rejected vicarious liability for an individual on that basis in Doe.⁠^[6] As with the State provision, this guide does not describe the elements courts require for aiding and abetting under the City law.

The City law applies to New York City. A person who does not live in the city has to show that the alleged conduct had an impact within the city, and the Court of Appeals has said this protects non-residents who work in the city.⁠^[18][19] For most employment provisions it also does not apply to an employer with fewer than four persons in its employ throughout the relevant period, with an exception for gender-based harassment claims.⁠^[20][21] The guide on retaliation under the NYC Human Rights Law covers the City retaliation rules.

Public employees

Government workplaces add their own rules. In the Second Circuit, individuals may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for certain discriminatory acts, including those giving rise to a hostile work environment, although Title VII claims do not lie against them.⁠^[7] New York State also has a statute on what happens after a judgment: a State employee who has been subject to a final judgment of personal liability for intentional wrongdoing related to a claim of sexual harassment has to reimburse the State agency that paid the award for his or her proportionate share within ninety days of the payment.⁠^[22] Claims against public employers can also carry special notice and timing rules, covered in the guide on public employees and notice of claim.

Where and when a claim against an individual is brought

The State and City provisions that reach individuals are part of the same statutes that govern the claim against the employer. A court action under the State Human Rights Law is subject to a three-year period, and a civil action under the City Human Rights Law has to be commenced within three years after the alleged practice occurred.⁠^[23][24] A federal Title VII charge in New York is due at the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged harm, but that charge is against the employer.⁠^[25][1]

The guides on suing in court, the choice between the agencies and court, and filing deadlines explain the forums and the clocks.

If you are the manager or owner

The same rules describe a manager's own exposure under the City and State statutes.⁠^[4][3] Separately, under the State's model sexual harassment prevention policy, supervisors and managers can be disciplined by the employer for failing to report suspected sexual harassment or for allowing it to continue after they know about it.⁠^[26] See the guide for managers and small employers.

What people commonly get wrong

• "You can sue your harasser personally under Title VII." Not in the Second Circuit.⁠^[1][7]
• "The owner or CEO is personally liable as the employer." Under the City law, owners, agents and employees of a business entity are not "employers"; they may incur liability only for their own conduct, aiding and abetting, or retaliation.⁠^[6][4]
• "A supervisor with hiring and firing power is an 'employer' under State law." The Court of Appeals called that a misinterpretation of its precedent in 2021.⁠^[2]

Practical notes

Whether to name an individual depends on the facts, and this guide does not advise on it. As a practical matter, it helps to write down exactly what the individual personally said, did or decided, as distinct from what the company did; who else took part or was told; and what happened after any complaint. The guides on documenting workplace harassment and questions to ask before you decide what to do can help organize that.