Sexual harassment law protects workers regardless of gender. The statutes are written without a gender qualifier. Male workers subjected to sexual harassment — whether by a female supervisor, by a male supervisor, by a female coworker, by a male coworker, by a customer, or by a client — have the same rights under Title VII, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and the NJLAD as anyone else.
The cases are under-reported for reasons that are cultural rather than legal. Male workers frequently do not identify the conduct as harassment, do not report it, and do not seek counsel. When they do, the cases are often strong and the recoveries meaningful.
The statutes do not distinguish by gender
Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. The Supreme Court has never suggested that the protection is asymmetric. To the contrary, the Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), spoke of the harassment framework in gender-neutral terms.
The NYSHRL at N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, the NYCHRL at N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, and the NJLAD at N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 apply the same way. Male workers have the same right to a workplace free of sexual harassment.
Oncale — same-sex sexual harassment
The most important case for male workers is Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Joseph Oncale was a male worker on an offshore oil platform who was subjected to sexual assault, threats of rape, and repeated humiliation by male coworkers and supervisors. The lower courts had dismissed the case on the theory that same-sex harassment was not actionable under Title VII. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
Justice Scalia wrote for the Court that “male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils.” The Court held that “nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”
The Court identified several routes by which a male plaintiff can show that same-sex harassment was “because of sex”:
- Evidence that the harasser was motivated by sexual desire toward the plaintiff.
- Evidence that the harasser was motivated by general hostility toward men in the workplace.
- Evidence comparing how the harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace.
Since Oncale, federal courts have applied these frameworks flexibly. The plaintiff does not have to prove the harasser’s sexual orientation, or the plaintiff’s own.
Gender stereotype claims — Price Waterhouse and Bostock
Sexual harassment claims by male workers frequently proceed under a gender-stereotype theory as well. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on a worker’s failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes is sex discrimination under Title VII. The framework reaches harassment of male workers for being “too soft,” “not manly enough,” insufficiently aggressive, insufficiently interested in sports or crude humor, or otherwise not conforming to a stereotyped notion of masculinity — conduct of that kind is analyzed within the “because of sex” theory.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” necessarily includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The reasoning of Bostock — that it is impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity without also discriminating on the basis of sex — has been applied to male-plaintiff harassment cases involving perceived orientation or perceived gender nonconformity.
The NYSHRL and NYCHRL protect against discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity as express and independent categories. The NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12, does the same. These state and local statutes do not require the Bostock argument to reach the same result.
The patterns
Sexual harassment of male workers tends to follow recognizable patterns.
Female-supervisor harassment. A female supervisor propositioning, touching, or making sexualized comments to a male subordinate. Quid pro quo scenarios — where the supervisor conditions assignments, promotions, or discretionary bonuses on the male worker’s willingness to spend time with her — are far more common than reporting rates suggest.
Male-on-male harassment in male-dominated workplaces. Construction, finance, restaurants, transportation, warehousing, tech, sales floors, and other male-dominated environments. The conduct often includes crude sexual joking directed at a specific worker, forced physical contact, sexual gestures, and threats or displays of a sexualized character. Oncale itself arose in this setting.
Hazing and initiation rituals. Sexualized hazing of newer or younger male workers — often defended by employers as “team building,” “workplace culture,” or “just how the guys are.” Under Title VII and the state and local statutes, that framing is not a defense.
Gender-nonconformity harassment. A male worker perceived as insufficiently masculine by supervisors or coworkers, subjected to sexualized taunting, degrading nicknames, and physical intimidation. These cases are strong under Price Waterhouse and its progeny.
Female-coworker harassment. Unwanted sexual comments, touching, propositions, or DMs from a female peer. The employer’s response to a male worker’s complaint is often the same as its response to any other complaint — an investigation of variable seriousness. The legal analysis is the same.
Sexual assault, at or connected to work. In serious cases, the harassment includes conduct that meets the criminal definition of sexual assault. Male complainants have every right to pursue civil claims for these acts, including under the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Act, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101 et seq., which applies without regard to the gender of the plaintiff or the assailant.
The reporting gap
Male workers report sexual harassment at a fraction of the rate at which they experience it. The reasons are cultural — internalized expectations about how men should react, the perception that reporting invites ridicule, concern that the conduct will not be taken seriously by HR, discomfort with the process, and awareness that management may minimize the complaint.
This reporting gap has legal significance. Employers occasionally argue that a male complainant “did not seem to mind” the conduct, or “participated in the joking,” or “did not report it earlier.” Federal, state, and city law rejects these defenses when the conduct was in fact unwelcome and when the worker’s reactions were the ordinary responses of a person trying to keep his job.
Federal courts have held for decades, since Meritor, that the correct question is whether the conduct was unwelcome, not whether the worker openly protested each incident.
Evidence
- Contemporaneous notes. Dated entries in a personal journal, made close in time to each incident.
- Preserved digital records. Screenshots of texts, DMs, Slack, and email chains. Forwarded to a personal account.
- Witnesses. Coworkers who observed the conduct, who received similar treatment, or who were told about it at the time.
- The employer’s response record. HR files, investigation notes, disciplinary records.
- Comparators. How the employer treated female complainants against the same harasser, or male complainants generally.
What to do
- Take the conduct seriously. The law does. There is no threshold below which a male worker should tolerate sexual harassment because of gender.
- Document. Contemporaneous, dated notes. Screenshots. Preserved communications.
- Report in writing. Email, HR portal, text to a supervisor. The written complaint is what makes employer liability attach.
- Consider counsel before the report. A conversation with an employment lawyer before filing the internal complaint often changes the shape of the complaint and preserves options.
- Do not sign a severance offer at termination. Especially not at the moment of termination. Take it home. Consult before signing.
If you are a male worker in New York or New Jersey experiencing sexual harassment at work — from a supervisor, a coworker, a customer, or a client — contact Fingerhut Law for a confidential consultation.
Attorney Advertising Disclaimer: This article is attorney advertising and is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.