Harassing an employee because she chooses to have an abortion – or chooses not to have an abortion – can constitute unlawful harassment based on sex/pregnancy.

To refuse to let a transgender employee use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity constitutes unlawful harassment. 

“Repeated and intentional” misnaming or misgendering of a transgender employee can constitute unlawful harassment based on gender identity. 

Harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions (including lactation, contraception, and abortion – either having one or not having one), sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Harassment against someone because of a mistaken belief that they belong to a certain protected group constitutes actionable harassment. 

Harassing someone because they are closely associated with someone of a protected class constitutes actionable harassment. It also includes (“associational discrimination”: harassing a white employee because he is married to an Asian female). 

Perceptions of conduct can change over time, and conduct that was initially dismissed as poor attempts at humor can but become unwelcome when they persist. 

Accepting certain behavior from certain co-workers does not mean that similar behavior is not unwelcome when it comes from others. 

A single request for a date, or one attempt at religious proselytization, may not be harassing, but repeated overtures at some point could create a hostile work environment. 

On social media, the EEOC has taken the position that if an employee posts offensive material on his or her personal account but the post does not target co-workers, the post will not normally be considered harassing, even if co-workers see the post and are offended by it. On the other hand, if the employee’s offensive post does target particular co-workers, then it is likely to be considered harassing. 

An employer should not presume guilt just because the alleged harasser is a member of a particular protected group. (In the case of a man accused of sexual harassment, the employer should not presume that the accused is guilty just because he is a man.)  

Harassing an employee because she chooses to have an abortion – or chooses not to have an abortion – can constitute unlawful harassment based on sex/pregnancy.

To refuse to let a transgender employee use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity constitutes unlawful harassment. 

“Repeated and intentional” misnaming or misgendering of a transgender employee can constitute unlawful harassment based on gender identity. 

Harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions (including lactation, contraception, and abortion – either having one or not having one), sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Harassment against someone because of a mistaken belief that they belong to a certain protected group constitutes actionable harassment. 

Harassing someone because they are closely associated with someone of a protected class constitutes actionable harassment. It also includes (“associational discrimination”: harassing a white employee because he is married to an Asian female). 

Perceptions of conduct can change over time, and conduct that was initially dismissed as poor attempts at humor can but become unwelcome when they persist. 

Accepting certain behavior from certain co-workers does not mean that similar behavior is not unwelcome when it comes from others. 

A single request for a date, or one attempt at religious proselytization, may not be harassing, but repeated overtures at some point could create a hostile work environment. 

On social media, the EEOC has taken the position that if an employee posts offensive material on his or her personal account but the post does not target co-workers, the post will not normally be considered harassing, even if co-workers see the post and are offended by it. On the other hand, if the employee’s offensive post does target particular co-workers, then it is likely to be considered harassing. 

An employer should not presume guilt just because the alleged harasser is a member of a particular protected group. (In the case of a man accused of sexual harassment, the employer should not presume that the accused is guilty just because he is a man.)  

Harassing an employee because she chooses to have an abortion – or chooses not to have an abortion – can constitute unlawful harassment based on sex/pregnancy.

To refuse to let a transgender employee use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity constitutes unlawful harassment. 

“Repeated and intentional” misnaming or misgendering of a transgender employee can constitute unlawful harassment based on gender identity. 

Harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions (including lactation, contraception, and abortion – either having one or not having one), sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Harassment against someone because of a mistaken belief that they belong to a certain protected group constitutes actionable harassment. 

Harassing someone because they are closely associated with someone of a protected class constitutes actionable harassment. It also includes (“associational discrimination”: harassing a white employee because he is married to an Asian female). 

Perceptions of conduct can change over time, and conduct that was initially dismissed as poor attempts at humor can but become unwelcome when they persist. 

Accepting certain behavior from certain co-workers does not mean that similar behavior is not unwelcome when it comes from others. 

A single request for a date, or one attempt at religious proselytization, may not be harassing, but repeated overtures at some point could create a hostile work environment. 

On social media, the EEOC has taken the position that if an employee posts offensive material on his or her personal account but the post does not target co-workers, the post will not normally be considered harassing, even if co-workers see the post and are offended by it. On the other hand, if the employee’s offensive post does target particular co-workers, then it is likely to be considered harassing. 

An employer should not presume guilt just because the alleged harasser is a member of a particular protected group. (In the case of a man accused of sexual harassment, the employer should not presume that the accused is guilty just because he is a man.)  

Harassing an employee because she chooses to have an abortion – or chooses not to have an abortion – can constitute unlawful harassment based on sex/pregnancy.

To refuse to let a transgender employee use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity constitutes unlawful harassment. 

“Repeated and intentional” misnaming or misgendering of a transgender employee can constitute unlawful harassment based on gender identity. 

Harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions (including lactation, contraception, and abortion – either having one or not having one), sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Harassment against someone because of a mistaken belief that they belong to a certain protected group constitutes actionable harassment. 

Harassing someone because they are closely associated with someone of a protected class constitutes actionable harassment. It also includes (“associational discrimination”: harassing a white employee because he is married to an Asian female). 

Perceptions of conduct can change over time, and conduct that was initially dismissed as poor attempts at humor can but become unwelcome when they persist. 

Accepting certain behavior from certain co-workers does not mean that similar behavior is not unwelcome when it comes from others. 

A single request for a date, or one attempt at religious proselytization, may not be harassing, but repeated overtures at some point could create a hostile work environment. 

On social media, the EEOC has taken the position that if an employee posts offensive material on his or her personal account but the post does not target co-workers, the post will not normally be considered harassing, even if co-workers see the post and are offended by it. On the other hand, if the employee’s offensive post does target particular co-workers, then it is likely to be considered harassing. 

An employer should not presume guilt just because the alleged harasser is a member of a particular protected group. (In the case of a man accused of sexual harassment, the employer should not presume that the accused is guilty just because he is a man.)  

Harassing an employee because she chooses to have an abortion – or chooses not to have an abortion – can constitute unlawful harassment based on sex/pregnancy.

To refuse to let a transgender employee use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity constitutes unlawful harassment. 

“Repeated and intentional” misnaming or misgendering of a transgender employee can constitute unlawful harassment based on gender identity. 

Harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions (including lactation, contraception, and abortion – either having one or not having one), sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

Harassment against someone because of a mistaken belief that they belong to a certain protected group constitutes actionable harassment. 

Harassing someone because they are closely associated with someone of a protected class constitutes actionable harassment. It also includes (“associational discrimination”: harassing a white employee because he is married to an Asian female). 

Perceptions of conduct can change over time, and conduct that was initially dismissed as poor attempts at humor can but become unwelcome when they persist. 

Accepting certain behavior from certain co-workers does not mean that similar behavior is not unwelcome when it comes from others. 

A single request for a date, or one attempt at religious proselytization, may not be harassing, but repeated overtures at some point could create a hostile work environment. 

On social media, the EEOC has taken the position that if an employee posts offensive material on his or her personal account but the post does not target co-workers, the post will not normally be considered harassing, even if co-workers see the post and are offended by it. On the other hand, if the employee’s offensive post does target particular co-workers, then it is likely to be considered harassing. 

An employer should not presume guilt just because the alleged harasser is a member of a particular protected group. (In the case of a man accused of sexual harassment, the employer should not presume that the accused is guilty just because he is a man.)