Examples of a Hostile Work Environment in New York

The examples on this page all come from a named source: a court decision, the EEOC, or New York State's model sexual harassment prevention policy. They show the kinds of conduct that agencies and courts have treated as harassment, and the kinds courts have said were not enough. No list can say whether a particular workplace meets the legal test, because every layer of law looks at the conduct in context.⁠^[3][9]

Some of the examples below involve physical or sexual assault. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.⁠^[10] The U.S. Department of Justice lists the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network hotline at 800-656-HOPE (800-656-4673).⁠^[11] The New York State Domestic and Sexual Violence Hotline is 800-942-6906 (text 844-997-2121), and the State describes it as confidential and available 24/7.⁠^[12]

How to read these examples

Three things decide how the law treats conduct like this, and none of them is visible from a list.

• The link to a protected characteristic. Federal law, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) each require that the conduct be because of a protected characteristic.⁠^[6][4][7]
• The layer of law. Federal Title VII requires conduct that is severe or pervasive.⁠^[13] The NYSHRL asks whether harassment subjected the person to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment.⁠^[4] The NYCHRL asks whether the person was treated less well than other employees.⁠^[5]
• Context. Federal courts look at all the circumstances, and New York courts applying the City law consider the totality of the circumstances.⁠^[3][9]

Each example below names its source and its layer. The State model policy is about sexual harassment, which it defines as a form of gender-based discrimination, so its examples are tied to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.⁠^[14] The NYSHRL's harassment provision itself covers every protected characteristic it lists.⁠^[4] For the tests themselves, start with what is a hostile work environment under New York law?

Verbal conduct

Example	Source and layer
Saying or writing an ethnic, racial, religious or sex-based slur	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
Imitating a person's disability-based limitations or mocking a person's accent	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
Threatening or intimidating a person because of their religious beliefs, religious attire or lack of religious beliefs	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
A company president telling a female manager in front of other employees "You're a woman, what do you know" and "We need a man as the rental manager"	Harris v. Forklift Systems, federal law; the Supreme Court sent the case back without deciding whether the test was met⁠[15]
Rating female employees' appearances and making lascivious comments about women's outfits and bodies	Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, City law; evidence a jury could credit⁠[16]
Telling an employee she should get a breast enlargement	Hernandez v. Kaisman, City law⁠[17]
Bullying, yelling or name-calling because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Intentional misuse of a person's preferred pronouns	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Remarks about an employee's gender expression, such as wearing a garment typically associated with a different gender identity	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Repeated requests for dates or romantic gestures, including gift-giving	New York State model policy⁠[19]

Harassing words do not have to be sexual to be sex-based. The Supreme Court gave the example, under federal law, of a woman harassed in sex-specific and derogatory terms by another woman in a way that makes clear the harasser is motivated by general hostility to the presence of women in the workplace.⁠^[20] The State model policy likewise says sexual harassment is not limited to sexual contact, touching or expressions of a sexually suggestive nature.⁠^[21]

Physical conduct

Example	Source and layer
Groping, touching or otherwise physically assaulting a person	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
Touching, pinching, patting, kissing, hugging, grabbing, brushing against or poking another employee's body	New York State model policy⁠[2]
Rape, sexual battery, molestation, or attempts to commit these assaults	New York State model policy, which notes these may be criminal conduct⁠[2]
An employer touching an employee's rear end and suggesting she "tighten" it up	Hernandez v. Kaisman, City law⁠[17]
Intimidation or physical violence directed at a person because of sex, gender identity or gender expression	New York State model policy⁠[2]

Physical contact is not a condition of a federal claim: the Second Circuit has held that a plaintiff need not show a physical threat.⁠^[22] Where conduct may also be a crime, see when workplace sexual harassment is also a crime.

Visual conduct and displays

Example	Source and layer
Displaying symbols such as a noose, religious or ethnic hate symbols, or racist cartoons	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
Nooses displayed on three occasions near Black employees' workstations, and the Confederate flag on employees' vehicles and clothing	Banks v. General Motors, federal law; evidence on which the Second Circuit said a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff⁠[23]
Sharing pornography or sexually demeaning images in the work environment	EEOC, federal law⁠[1]
Allegations that a supervisor watched pornographic videos in his office daily and that his secretary had to handle his pornographic mail	Patane v. Clark, federal law; held to state a claim⁠[24]
Men in an office openly viewing and sharing pornography	Mihalik, City law; evidence a jury could credit⁠[16]
Signs of a sexual nature or directed at a person because of sex, gender identity or gender expression	New York State model policy⁠[2]

Digital and remote conduct

Example	Source and layer
Calls, texts, emails and social media use by employees, even away from the workplace premises, on personal devices or during non-work hours	New York State model policy⁠[25]
Harassment on virtual meeting platforms, in messaging apps, and after working hours between personal cell phones	New York State model policy⁠[26]
Sexually demeaning materials visible in the background of a person's home during a virtual meeting	New York State model policy⁠[26]
An employer circulating emails with sexual content to staff	Hernandez v. Kaisman, City law; the court said the emails had to be viewed in their overall context⁠[17]

Many websites still quote examples about remote work and social media from the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance. The EEOC voted on January 22, 2026, to rescind that guidance, so it is not cited here as current federal policy.⁠^[27][28] The examples above from New York State's model policy are unaffected by that federal vote. See remote work and online harassment.

Exclusion and different expectations

Example	Source and layer
Creating different expectations for people based on their perceived identities, such as dress codes that place more emphasis on women's attire	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Leaving parents or caregivers out of meetings	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Gender role stereotyping and treating employees differently because of their gender	New York State model policy⁠[21]

Assignments and interference with work

Example	Source and layer
Sabotaging an individual's work because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression	New York State model policy⁠[18]
Asking a woman to serve meeting refreshments when it is not part of, or appropriate to, her job duties	New York State model policy⁠[18]
A president asking a female manager and other female employees to get coins from his front pants pocket	Harris v. Forklift Systems, federal law; the Supreme Court did not decide whether the test was met⁠[15]
Sexual advances or pressure placed on a service-industry employee by customers or clients	New York State model policy⁠[19]

When a job benefit is offered or withheld in exchange for sexual favors, the State model policy calls it quid pro quo harassment, a different type from hostile work environment.⁠^[2] See quid pro quo sexual harassment and, for conduct by outsiders, harassment by customers, clients and vendors.

Conduct courts have said was not enough

Each of these rulings belongs to one layer of law and one set of facts. The older State ruling in particular was made under a standard that no longer applies to newer claims.

Conduct	Ruling	Layer and caution
Simple teasing, offhand comments and isolated incidents that are not extremely serious	Do not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment⁠[29]	Federal law only
The mere utterance of an epithet that engenders offensive feelings	Does not, by itself, sufficiently affect the conditions of employment⁠[30]	Federal law only; a single sufficiently serious act can still meet the federal threshold in the Second Circuit⁠[31]
A mild, isolated incident	Does not make a work environment hostile⁠[32]	Federal law, Second Circuit
Comments made in the plaintiff's presence on one occasion, not directed at her, which she took as partly complimentary to a coworker	Nothing more than petty slights or trivial inconveniences⁠[8]	City law (Williams, 2009)
An overbearing or obnoxious boss, without a discriminatory motive	Not enough⁠[7]	City law (Mihalik, 2013)
Three racial epithets over a nine-year employment history	Did not satisfy the severe or pervasive test⁠[33]	State law as it stood before October 11, 2019; not an outcome under the current statute⁠[34][35]

Why the layer changes the answer

One illustration is a single case decided under two laws. In Hernandez v. Kaisman (2012), a doctor's emails with sexual content and sporadic comments about employees' bodies were held not to meet the State "severe and pervasive" test then in force, yet the City-law claim survived summary judgment because it was not a "truly insubstantial case."⁠^[36][17] In Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA (2011), a race case, the court said a jury could reasonably have found harassment that, "while not severe and pervasive, constituted more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences" under the City law.⁠^[37][38]

The State test has since changed. For claims that accrued on or after October 11, 2019, the NYSHRL makes harassment unlawful regardless of whether it would be considered severe or pervasive, subject to the employer's affirmative defense that the conduct does not rise above petty slights or trivial inconveniences.⁠^[4][34] See where "severe or pervasive" still applies and the petty slights defense.

What an example cannot tell you

• How many incidents it takes. Under City law even a single comment may be actionable in the proper context, and the State model policy says any harassing conduct, even a single incident, can be discrimination.⁠^[39][2] Under federal law in the Second Circuit a single incident must be extraordinarily severe.⁠^[40] See can one incident be a hostile work environment?
• Whether the motive was discriminatory. Conduct that looks neutral can count under federal law where there is a basis to infer it was discriminatory, for example where the same person is responsible for both overtly sexual and neutral acts.⁠^[41] Hostility with no link to a protected characteristic is covered in bullying compared with illegal harassment.
• Whether the employer is responsible. That depends on who the harasser was and on the layer of law; see employer liability for harassment by supervisors and coworkers.

If you are comparing your own situation with these examples, a dated record of what happened, who was present and what was said is more useful than a general description. The guide to documenting workplace harassment explains how to keep one.