skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Harassment in the Workplace

This page covers workplace sexual, civil, and criminal harassment in Washington State, providing legal definitions, employer responsibilities, and examples of anti-harassment policies. Also includes guidance on complaints, non-employee harassment, and public meetings disruptions.

Overview

Harassment in the workplace is prohibited by federal and state law, as well as by anti-harassment policies from employers, including  local governments. Management and employees are responsible for preventing harassment, sexual or otherwise, at work. This helps provide a safe and respectful environment for all.

This page addresses the types of harassment that may take place at work, including sexual harassment, civil harassment, and criminal harassment, and includes tools and resources for local governments to effectively handle workplace complaints.

If you are seeking information on discrimination in the workplace, see our page on Employment Discrimination.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is an illegal form of discrimination and involves unwelcome sexual advances or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Sexual harassment may include:

  • Unwelcome sexual advances;
  • Requests for sexual favors;
  • Sexually motivated physical contact; and
  • Other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when
    • the conduct is explicitly or implicitly a condition of employment;
    • an individual’s reaction to the conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions; or
    • the conduct has interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Under federal law, sexual harassment is considered a form of illegal sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1604.11(a)(3)). Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations, and the federal government. More information on Title VII can be found on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website.

Under state law, the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (Chapter 49.60 RCW), known as WLAD, prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in employment. Specifically, RCW 49.60.180 allows employees to bring legal action against hostile work environments, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and disparate treatment based on gender.

WLAD is enforced by the the Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC), with which employees may file complaints. They also have the right to file lawsuits in state court.

In addition to these federal and state laws, many local governments have also developed their own anti-harassment policies in their workplaces. Local governments may wish to review the WSHRC’s model policies (in the “Sexual Harassment” section) when developing their own.

Examples of Anti-Sexual Harassment Policies and Forms

Civil Harassment

Unlawful harassment is defined as "a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose" (RCW 7.105.010). In turn, the public is not permitted to engage in actions that disrupt the orderly conduct of agency business. Such disruptions, if severe, may justify removing an individual from the premises.

Harassing behavior by members of the public may also be in the form of complaints made against public officials.

Local governments may adopt policies that help prevent the public’s harassment of their employees, such as shielding staff from direct interactions with difficult individuals. To protect employees from harassment by members of the public, municipalities may:

  • Restrict certain areas of the building to employees only.
  • Implement a policy defining unacceptable behavior; see the Port Townsend Municipal Code Ch. 9.50 as an example. These policies should include exclusion periods based on the severity of behavior and should allow for an appeal process.
  • Assign a manager to handle disruptive individuals, protecting front-line staff or regularly targeted individuals.
  • Secure a restraining order to prevent a harassing individual from entering government buildings.

Interactions in Publicly Accessible Areas

Individuals have the right to audio and video record public employees working in public areas, as long as the recording is not disruptive. So, one course of action to prevent this type of harassment is by limiting publicly accessible spaces, like service counters and lobbies, and/or reducing the number of hours these spaces are open each week. Employees can also avoid being filmed by working in private areas, such as conference rooms or break rooms, when possible.

For more information, see MRSC’s Rights and Limits on Filming in Public Facilities blog.

Disruption of Public Meetings

Offensive remarks alone are not enough to cut off a speaker at a public meeting. The conduct must be actually disruptive to the conduct of the meeting. Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa (2013) upheld the city’s municipal ordinance that stated:

It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a council meeting to do any of the following ... (1) Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.

Likewise, governing boards can adopt rules for public comments, including limiting speaking time and restricting comments to agenda items. Violating these rules can justify the interruption or cutting off of a speaker.

Resources for managing public meeting disruptions include the following blogs from MRSC:

Public Records Requests

Even if agencies suspect multiple records requests are made in order to harass, there is no limit to the number of requests an individual can make. Public agencies must respond as required by the Public Records Act (PRA).

For more information, see MRSC’s page Responding to Public Records Requests.

Criminal Harassment

In some situations, harassing conduct in the workplace may also be the basis for consideration of criminal charges. Under Washington State law, threats of violence or physical harm to individuals or property destruction may be reported to law enforcement. Criminal charges may include:

  • Trespass charges under RCW 9A.52.080 if disruptive behavior continues after a trespass warning.
  • Charges for threats of violence, physical assault, property damage, or theft under RCW 9A.46.020.
  • Charges of intimidating a public servant under RCW 9A.76.180. An individual is guilty of intimidating a public servant if “by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a public servant’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action.”
  • Stalking charges under RCW 9A.46.110.

Developing an Anti-Harassment Policy

Personnel policies related to alleged discrimination and/or harassment typically include reporting and investigation requirements for claims of harassment or discrimination. The policy should include a reporting procedure that if an employee alleges harassment, complaints can be made to human resources, risk management representatives, or the municipal attorney.

In developing your anti-harassment policy, we suggest the following steps:

  • Develop a written anti-harassment policy and make sure that all employees have a copy. To make sure that all employees have received and understood the written policies, signed statements confirming their understanding, and have copies of the signed form in their personnel files.
  • Notify employees of their rights, including how to report incidents of sexual harassment.
  • Establish a clear complaint procedure that establishes a process for handling complaints, investigating and documenting charges, and correcting misconduct. Create an open atmosphere in which complaints can be raised without fear of retaliation.
  • Educate and train managers and supervisors about their responsibilities under the anti-harassment policy.
  • Educate and train all employees regarding responsible behavior in the workplace and appropriate procedures for reporting incidents of harassment.
  • Investigate complaints promptly and thoroughly.
  • Take prompt and effective remedial action.
NOTE: Having an employment policy is not enough to avoid liability for hostile work environment harassment. All complaints of harassment should be processed in accordance with your policy including prompt investigation and effective punishment for any instances of harassment that are found to have occurred.

As for anti-harassment training for staff, some insurance carrier/risk pools also may require this type of training as part of your coverage. The Washington Department of Enterprise Services also has training requirements for state employees, but most of these do not extend to local government employees. However, this list of training could help guide developing local training policies.

Examples of Anti-Harassment Policies

Investigating Complaints and Occurrences

When complaints or other knowledge of harassment are received, legal governments should consult with their agency’s legal counsel and risk pool representatives. All employers, including local government employers, need to investigate complaints of harassment and take action to correct and prevent harassment. This requires either training internal staff to investigate complaints or hiring outside experts to complete an investigation. If harassment has occurred, local agencies should determine a course of actions to discipline those engaging in harassment.

Examples of Investigating Harassment Complaint Policies

Court Decisions

The following is a non-exhaustive overview of court decisions on this subject. Check with your agency’s attorneys for legal authority about particular situations. 

Individuals of all genders are entitled to protection.

EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services (2010) – Men as well as women are entitled under Title VII to protection from sexually abusive work environments.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) – Same-gender harassment is illegal when it is “because of sex.” This case states that harassment can violate Title VII's prohibition against "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex" even if the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same gender. 

Importance of agencies' prompt and adequate action.

Herried v. Pierce County Transp. (1998) – The court held the employee could not prove that they were the subject of gender-based discrimination, or that Pierce Transit was negligent in supervising an employee who allegedly discriminated and harassed the plaintiff because the agency investigated each complaint and took remedial actions.

Harassment created in the workplace by non-employees.

Folkerson v. Circus Enters., Inc. (1997) – Employers may be liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." See also Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc. (1998) and LaRose v. King County (2019).

Disparate treatment based on gender.

Schonauer v. DCR Entertainment (1995) – RCW 49.60.180(2) (3) established that under the law that “sex” means “gender,” and therefore, it is an unfair practice for any employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any person in compensation or in other terms or conditions of employment because of gender. Harassment based on gender is defined as actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment and as quid pro quo sexual harassment. Even where sexual harassment is not involved, sex discrimination can be proven by showing  disparate treatment based on gender.

Test for harassing conduct.

Glasgow v. Georgia v. Pacific Corp. (1985) – To establish a work environment sexual harassment claim, the employee must prove all of the following elements: (1) the harassment was unwelcome; (2) the harassment was because of sex; (3) the harassment affected the terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the harassment is imputed to the employer. Conduct affects the terms or conditions of employment “if it is ‘sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment’.”

Davis v. Fred's Appliance, Inc. (2012) – This case concluded that whether conduct is severe and pervasive enough depends on the “totality of the circumstances…including the frequency and severity of harassing conduct, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating or merely an offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance.”

Harassment on social media.

Okonowsky v. Garland (2024) – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed workplace harassment via social media posts in and held the totality of the circumstances in a Title VII hostile work environment claim includes evidence of sexually harassing conduct, even if it does not expressly target the employee making a claim, as well as evidence of non-sexual conduct directed at the employee that a jury could find retaliatory or intimidating. Harassing conduct outside of the physical workplace “can be actionable, especially in light of the ubiquity of social media and the ready use of it to harass and bully both inside and outside of the physical workplace.”

Recommended Resources


Last Modified: February 23, 2026