Harassment by Text, Chat, Email and Video Call: Remote Work and Online Harassment in New York

New York State's model sexual harassment prevention policy says that calls, texts, emails and social media use by employees can constitute unlawful workplace harassment even if they occur away from the workplace premises, on personal devices or during non-work hours.⁠^[1]

The same policy says sexual harassment can occur when employees are working remotely from home, on virtual meeting platforms, in messaging apps and after working hours between personal cell phones.⁠^[2]

None of the three legal tests described below is written in terms of a medium; each asks what the conduct did to the person's working conditions, and why.⁠^[3][4][5] The State model policy says remarks made over virtual platforms and in messaging apps when employees are working remotely can create a similarly hostile work environment.⁠^[9] Remote work also raises a separate question: whether New York State or City law reaches the worker at all.

What the New York State model policy says about remote and digital conduct

The State Department of Labor, with the Division of Human Rights, publishes a model sexual harassment prevention policy; the version now posted is marked as the 2023 version.⁠^[10]

Under Labor Law § 201-g, every employer in New York State has to adopt that model policy or its own policy that equals or exceeds the model's minimum standards. That makes the model policy's wording the baseline for what employers tell their staff.⁠^[11]

Beyond the two statements above, the State model policy makes these points:

• The policy's rule on sexually demeaning material extends to the virtual or remote workspace and can include having such materials visible in the background of one's home during a virtual meeting.⁠^[2]
• The impacted person does not need to be the intended target of the sexual harassment.⁠^[12]
• The intent of the behavior, such as making a joke, does not neutralize a harassment claim under the policy; the impact of the behavior on a person is what counts.⁠^[12]

What kind of source this is. The model policy is an agency template for employers' internal rules about sexual harassment. It is not the statute, and adopting it is not a defense to a harassment claim. Each claim is decided under the legal standards described below.⁠^[10][13]

For the full policy, see the guide to the New York model sexual harassment prevention policy. For parties, travel and other off-site settings, see sexual harassment outside the office and after hours.

The legal tests that apply to messages, posts and calls

Each layer applies its own test.

Layer	The test	What falls below it
Federal (Title VII)	Harassment because of a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, judged on all the circumstances.⁠[5][14]	Simple teasing, offhand comments and isolated incidents, unless extremely serious.⁠[15]
New York State (New York State Human Rights Law, NYSHRL)	Harassment that subjects a person to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of a protected category, regardless of whether it would be considered severe or pervasive.⁠[3]	Conduct covered by the affirmative defense that it does not rise above what a reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristic would consider petty slights or trivial inconveniences.⁠[3]
New York City (New York City Human Rights Law, NYCHRL)	Being treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.⁠[4]	Conduct the employer proves was nothing more than what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider petty slights and trivial inconveniences.⁠[16]

Under the NYSHRL, the harassment provision covers every protected characteristic listed in it, not only sex. The model policy quoted above is about sexual harassment, but the statutory test in the table is the same for harassment based on race, age, disability and the other listed categories.⁠^[3]

Which employers each law covers also differs by layer; see which employers are covered.

Examples of digital conduct that appear in official sources and cases

The examples below come from the cited source only. Whether any particular conduct crosses the legal line depends on the facts and on the test for the law that applies.

• Written slurs and shared images (federal). The EEOC's current questions-and-answers page for employees lists, as examples of harassing conduct, saying or writing an ethnic, racial, religious or sex-based slur and sharing pornography or sexually demeaning images in the work environment.⁠^[17]
• Emails with sexual content (New York City). In Hernandez v. Kaisman (2012), an employer sent office staff emails with sexual media content and made comments about two employees' bodies. The court held the incidents did not meet the "severe and pervasive" test it applied to the State-law claim at the time, but let the NYCHRL claim go forward, saying that the comments' being isolated was irrelevant under the City law. The State test has since changed.⁠^[18][19]
• Name-calling and misuse of pronouns (New York State). The model policy lists bullying, yelling or name-calling and intentional misuse of a person's preferred pronouns among hostile actions taken against a person because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.⁠^[9]
• Remarks not aimed at the person (federal). The Second Circuit has said discriminatory conduct not directly targeted at a person, such as remarks made in that person's presence, can contribute to an actionable hostile work environment.⁠^[20]

More examples, grouped by type, are in examples of a hostile work environment in New York. On single messages, see whether one incident can be a hostile work environment.

Where federal EEOC guidance stands in October 2026

Older articles about online harassment may cite the EEOC's 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. On January 22, 2026, the EEOC voted 2 to 1 to rescind it.⁠^[6]

The older EEOC harassment guidance documents that the 2024 guidance had replaced carry a "Rescinded" banner on the EEOC's website.⁠^[21] In announcing the vote, the EEOC's Chair stated that the rescission does not give employers license to engage in unlawful harassment, and that federal employment laws against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting those laws, remain firmly in place.⁠^[7]

What the EEOC currently publishes is a short summary. It says harassment becomes unlawful where enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or where the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive.⁠^[22]

The rescission concerned a federal agency document. The New York State and New York City standards in the table above come from State and City statutes and court decisions.⁠^[3][23]

Who can be responsible for online harassment?

The State model policy says a harasser can be a supervisor, a supervisee or a coworker, and also anyone else in the workplace, including an independent contractor, contract worker, vendor, client, customer, patient, constituent or visitor.⁠^[24]

When an employer is legally answerable for a supervisor's, coworker's or customer's conduct differs by layer; see employer liability for supervisors and coworkers and harassment by customers, clients and vendors.

Retaliation can be online too

The State model policy says retaliatory actions need not be job-related or occur in the workplace, and gives disparaging someone on social media as an example of retaliation covered by the policy.⁠^[25]

Under the NYCHRL, retaliation need not be an ultimate employment action or a materially adverse change; the act has to be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity. Under Title VII, the Supreme Court has said the anti-retaliation provision extends beyond workplace-related or employment-related acts.⁠^[26][27]

Remote workers: which state's law applies?

Working from home raises a separate question from whether the conduct is harassment: whether New York State or City law reaches the worker at all.

• Non-residents (State and City). The Court of Appeals held in Hoffman v. Parade Publications that a non-resident has to plead and prove that the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact within the state, for the NYSHRL, or within the city, for the NYCHRL.⁠^[28][29] The Court has since described two ways to do that: working in New York, or establishing that the conduct had some impact on the person within the relevant New York boundaries.⁠^[30]
• People who work in the city. The impact rule extends the NYCHRL's protection to non-residents who work in New York City.⁠^[31]
• State agency guidance on remote work. New York State's sexual harassment guidance says that if a person lives in another state and works entirely or mostly remotely, the worksite is in the home state and the person is not covered by the NYSHRL for harassment experienced while not in New York. The same guidance says the person is covered for harassment experienced while physically present in New York.⁠^[8][32]
• New York residents. The NYSHRL applies to an act committed outside the state against a resident of the state if the act would be an unlawful discriminatory practice had it been committed in New York.⁠^[33]

The agency guidance in that list is an agency's reading, not a court holding. The cases and their limits are covered in whether New York law applies to remote workers.

Reporting and keeping records

Under the State model policy, an employee does not have to use the written complaint form; a complaint made verbally or by email is treated with equal priority.⁠^[34]

The model policy's investigation procedure includes steps to preserve documents, emails and phone records relevant to the complaint.⁠^[35]

Complaining internally does not extend the time to file with the Division of Human Rights or in court, according to the same policy.⁠^[36]

See how to report harassment or discrimination at work.

Preserving digital evidence

Destroying evidence can have consequences in court. In New York courts, a party seeking sanctions for the destruction of evidence shows that the party in control of it had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed, that it was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that it was relevant to a claim or defense.⁠^[37]

The following are practical steps, not legal rules:

• Keep the original messages, including the thread around them, instead of deleting or editing them.
• Take screenshots that show the sender, the date and the time, and note which platform each message came from.
• Write down what was said or shown on calls and video meetings soon afterward, with the date and the names of everyone on the call.
• Keep copies of material sent to you on your own phone or personal accounts where you already have it. Do not take employer documents you would not otherwise have access to.

Two more points bear on evidence from calls and work accounts.

Recording. New York's eavesdropping law defines wiretapping as recording a telephone communication by a person other than a sender or receiver, without the consent of either, and defines mechanical overhearing as recording a conversation without the consent of at least one party, by a person not present at it. Under the federal Wiretap Act, it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to a communication to intercept it, unless it is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. These sources cover New York and federal law only; see recording conversations at work before recording a call.⁠^[38][39]

Monitoring. Under Civil Rights Law § 52-c, an employer with a place of business in New York that monitors or intercepts employees' telephone, email or internet use must give prior written notice, upon hiring, to all employees who are subject to electronic monitoring; the section does not cover the State or its political subdivisions. Messages sent on work systems may therefore be visible to the employer. See employer monitoring of email.⁠^[40]

The fuller guide is documenting workplace harassment.

When online conduct may also be a crime

Some digital conduct is covered by New York State statutes that are separate from employment law. Under Penal Law § 245.15, it is a class A misdemeanor to intentionally disseminate or publish an intimate image of an identifiable person, including an image created or altered by digitization, with intent to cause harm to that person's emotional, financial or physical welfare, when the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person did not consent. Civil Rights Law § 52-b gives the person depicted a separate civil cause of action.⁠^[41][42]

See when workplace sexual harassment is also a crime.