Headhunting Services WithNo Upfront Costs
210-Day Replacement Coverage, First Candidates in 2-3 Weeks
HR Compliance & OperationLegal & Regulatory
Harassment is a recurring business risk that affects people, performance, and brand value. In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) logged 81,055 discrimination charges and secured more than $665 million for workers, with retaliation appearing in a large share of cases. For directors, the signal is clear: awareness alone is not enough. This is a workplace harassment problem with real financial and cultural stakes that demands steady oversight and clear accountability across every work environment the company operates. The board’s standard is a safe and respectful workplace across every location and team.
This report explains what harassment in the workplace means under U.S., U.K., and global standards; identifies the types of workplace harassment that drive the most exposure; and shows how digital conduct in chat, email, and video meetings now plays a major role. It also sets practical expectations for speed and quality when dealing with any claims of harassment in the workplace, this includes fast acknowledgement, fair fact-finding, and post-case monitoring to guard against backlash.
Finally, the report links prevention to results by showing how culture, training, and credible reporting systems cut claims and improve retention. The goal is a safe, respectful work environment where issues are surfaced early and handled well, and where leaders address harassment before it spreads.
Within the US legal framework harassment in the workplace is defined as any unwelcome conduct tied to protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Conduct becomes unlawful if tolerating it is made a condition of employment or if it is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and related anti discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC. Patterns or severe single incidents that meet these criteria can constitute harassment under federal law.
Examples include slurs, threats, intimidation, offensive jokes, and other offensive conduct. In April 2024, the EEOC also issued updated guidelines that cover digital conduct. However, parts of the updated guidelines were rescinded in 2025, so for businesses operating in the US, policy and training should follow current case law while holding a high internal standard across every work environment. Under federal law, documentation and consistent action matter as much as policy text.
The UK relies on the Equality Act when defining harassment. This piece of legislation defines workplace harassment as unwanted behaviour related to a protected characteristic that violates dignity or creates an intimidating, humiliating, or offensive environment. In plain terms, any unwanted behavior linked to a protected characteristic that harms dignity may meet this standard.
Speech, writing, images, and online posts are all covered within the scope of this legislation. Section 26 sets the legal standard. Employers should reflect U.K. wording in training and include local spelling such as inappropriate behaviors so guidance is easy to follow.
The ILO (International Labor Organization) Convention C190 covers single or repeated acts that cause physical harassment, psychological harassment, sexual harassment, or economic harm. More recently, C190 also includes provisions for online conduct. Many multinational corporations use C190 as the international standard across their different branches, while also balancing local employment law requirements.
In situations where standards conflict, often the company will apply the stricter rule and explain the rationale to the affected parties in order to keep workplace culture feeling consistent no which branch was affected.
Quid pro quo harassment arises when job decisions like hiring, scheduling, pay, and promotion depend on sexual favors or on enduring unwelcome sexual advances. Because this pattern of harassment is directly linked to hierarchal authority within the corporate structure, even one event can invite severe legal consequences and expensive litigation.
With this understanding it is critical that the governing board makes sure that there are well-established channels that all staff know about, providing employees with a safe way to report harassment without going through the chain of command and that outcomes are logged in the workplace investigation record.
A hostile work setting exists when an ample amount of bad conduct occurs with enough regularity or intensity that a reasonable person would find the workplace threatening or abusive. The courts look at how often these events happen, the intensity of the action, whether there were physical threats or contact that was physical in nature, whether the conduct had an impact on coworkers’ ability to work, and who the actors and victims were during the event.
It is also worth noting that online behavior will also be judged by the same standards as is used when investigating in-person conduct.
Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or visual conduct of a sexual nature that creates an abusive setting. It also covers mistreatment tied to pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The EEOC recorded more than 7,700 sexual harassment charges in 2023, a twelve-year high. In practice, risk appears through explicit DMs, suggestive posts in team channels, or backlash after someone refuses unwanted sexual advances. Boards should look to employ systems that effectively collect “time-to-first-action” data and evidence of sexual harassment even before investigations take place.
Slurs, stereotyping, exclusion, or degrading images linked to race, color, or ethnicity can create liability and damage culture fast. High-profile workplace harassment cases show how daily exposure escalates when early reports are ignored.
Address racial harassment with targeted audits, manager coaching, and verification that corrective actions change conduct. Use “ethnicity” where appropriate in training to reduce overuse of legal terms while keeping accuracy.
Demeaning remarks about beliefs or practices, pressure to conform, or denial of reasonable accommodations for staff to safely perform religious practices can create an unlawful setting. Treat religious harassment the same way as other workplace harassment: consistent intake, fair review, and clear timelines. Appeals and measured tracking help prevent a toxic workplace.
Discriminatory harassment or discriminatory behavior can target disability, age, or other statuses. Claims often show mixed motives, where performance notes sit beside slurs or derogatory comments. Train managers to separate feedback from attack and to document workplace harassment details when they experience harassment on their teams. This is part of basic employment law hygiene and protects the work environment.
Sex-stereotyping, mocking gender expression (sexual orientation), or misgendering can support claims of gender based harassment, especially when assignments, pay, or reviews are affected. Gender identity harassment is preventable with accurate names and pronouns in systems, specific manager coaching, and clear norms for meetings and chat. These steps also help prevent sexual harassment where power dynamics are in play.
Repeated insults, threats, and inappropriate comments erode trust and results. Treat verbal harassment like any other workplace harassment: intervene early, log actions, and check for repeat patterns across teams. Where speech crosses into aggressive behavior, escalate quickly to protect the work environment.
Harmful physical conduct, unwanted physical contact, and threats require immediate action. Physical harassment often overlaps with workplace violence, so safety rules come first. Leaders should prioritize employee safety, verify drills and access controls, and ensure every harassment incident gets a timely workplace investigation with documented steps.
Gaslighting, rumor-spreading, and isolation harm mental health and retention. When tied to a protected status, this is psychological harassment and may be unlawful; even when it is personal harassment without a status link, it still damages the work environment. Track hotspots where turnover, complaints, and sick leave rise together and act on the data. Name personal harassment explicitly in policy so employees recognize it and report harassment early.
Customers, clients, vendors, or visitors can create risk, especially in frontline settings. If the company controls the site and fails to act, liability can follow. Ensure incidents involving outsiders are logged the same way as internal reports, and confirm that bans or contract remedies are used when needed. Treat this as workplace harassment in every work environment, not a customer-service issue.
Abuse of authority shows up as isolation, unreasonable demands, or invasive scrutiny. Power harassment is preventable with clear escalation paths and independent review when senior leaders are named. The message is simple: authority is never a shield for workplace harassment or personal harassment.
Threats, intimidation, and assault need prevention planning and fast response. A mature program includes risk assessments, clear escalation paths, and after-action reviews. Integrate these systems with workplace harassment reporting so safety and HR see the same facts.
Cases often mix online and in-person conduct or involve more than one protected status. Intersectional cases require precise fact-finding and consistent remedies. Use C190 as a lens for cross-border decisions and keep records that show how standards were applied across each work environment.
A defensible model includes multiple channels to report harassment without using the chain of command, anonymous intake that works on mobile, and service-level targets: acknowledgement within forty-eight hours, interim safety steps as needed, and a completed workplace investigation within set timelines.
Investigators should be impartial and trained in evidence handling and digital forensics, with records that show effective harassment investigations and consistent outcomes. Because many employees experience harassment and fear backlash, post-case monitoring should track scheduling, pay, workload, and ratings for at least six months.
When a harassment claim raises complex legal questions, employees should have access to legal assistance and legal counsel. Leaders must explain how facts were weighed and how decisions were reached so people trust the system across every work environment.
Prevention works when it is specific, measured, and funded. Policies should ban harassing behavior in plain language and include common scenarios from the company’s real work, such as customer-facing conflict, late-night messaging, or cross-border project teams. Training should be short, role-based, and repeated, with bystander skills and manager practice on early interventions.
Reporting must be easy at any hour, with prompts in collaboration tools and QR codes in break areas. Leaders should review four signals each quarter: time to first action after a report, investigation duration and outcomes, survey results on trust and psychological safety, and repeat-offender patterns by team.
Culture shows up in numbers. If bullying is linked to about $14,000 in lost performance per affected employee, even a small reduction produces savings. For example, in a 500-person company, cutting bullying prevalence by only ten percent can avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in productivity loss, often many times the cost of training and system upgrades. The return improves further when better culture reduces turnover and claims.
Measurement is where real oversight lives. Boards should receive a quarterly view that includes new case volume, acknowledgement time, interim safety actions taken, investigation duration, findings, and discipline. Patterns matter more than single cases. Look for spikes by site, shift, or manager, and for repeat names across multiple reports.
Track retention, internal mobility, and absenteeism for teams with incidents to see whether culture is improving. Require proof that leaders close the loop with affected teams and that lessons learned are built into training and supervision. If retaliation appears in most charges nationwide, assume it will surface unless you look for it.
The company should monitor reporter outcomes for months after closure and explain negative changes. Ultimately, tie some variable compensation for executives and senior managers to measurable progress: faster responses, fewer repeat incidents, and higher trust scores.
Boards should treat harassment as a standing risk that demands steady, visible oversight. Start by setting clear service levels for reports, acknowledge within two days, place interim safety measures when needed, and complete fair investigations on a defined timeline. Require a company-wide baseline that meets or exceeds local laws and applies equally to on-site, remote, and hybrid teams. Insist on quarterly dashboards that track volume, time to first action, investigation outcomes, repeat-offender patterns, and post-closure checks for retaliation.
Direct management to invest in short, role-based training, bystander skills, and easy mobile reporting so people can seek help without fear. Tie a share of executive pay to measurable gains: faster responses, fewer repeat incidents, higher trust scores, and lower turnover in prior hotspots. When leaders set clear expectations, measure results, and act on the data, the organization protects its people and strengthens long-term performance.
Yes, if the incident is severe. Otherwise, a pattern may be required. The company should assess the facts, effect on work, and any physical element. Online conduct is evaluated the same way as in-person conduct.
Bullying may not target a protected status but still harms culture and results. It becomes a legal issue when connected to a protected status or when it crosses into threats. Either way, the company should act early and document steps.
Yes. Chats, emails, and video-meeting behavior are all in scope when tied to work. Reporting should capture digital evidence easily, and managers should respond to online issues with the same urgency as in-person conduct.
Only pay for successful hires
