Morristown, NJ employment law attorney Chris Lenzo talks about examples of harassment based on protected characteristics other than sex. He notes that harassment is one of the most commonly misunderstood areas of employment law. Also referred to as a hostile work environment, harassment is often perceived by the public as simply a supervisor being unpleasant, abusive, or generally hostile. However, he explains that such conduct is not unlawful on its own. For harassment or a hostile work environment to be legally actionable, the employee must be targeted because of a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws or as a result of engaging in a protected activity under anti-retaliation laws.

He points out that sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environment claims are the most widely recognized, largely due to media coverage, but harassment can also arise from race, religion, disability, or protected activities. For example, an employee who blows the whistle on violations of SEC or FDA regulations may face retaliation that does not include outright termination or demotion, but could manifest as longer hours, undesirable assignments, or social ostracism. Such treatment, when tied to the employee’s protected characteristic or activity, may constitute a hostile work environment.

He emphasizes that for a claim to succeed, the conduct must be either severe or pervasive. Severe conduct could be a single, egregious incident, such as a racial epithet directed at an employee by a high-ranking official. He cites a New Jersey Supreme Court case in which a county sheriff directed a racial epithet at a Black officer in front of others; the court held that this single incident was severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Pervasive conduct, on the other hand, involves repeated incidents over time that, while potentially less serious individually, cumulatively create a hostile environment.

Finally, he explains that the standard is objective: the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person sharing the same protected characteristic would perceive the terms and conditions of employment as negatively altered. In a race-based harassment claim, for instance, the question is whether a reasonable person of the same race would find the workplace environment changed in a detrimental way as a result of the harassment.