A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

What is a ‘hostile work environment’?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Usually included among the accusations in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a person victimized at work is one saying the alleged harasser created a hostile work environment. What is a “hostile work environment,” exactly?

As readers who have never experienced sexual harassment can probably guess, there is a difference between being in a hostile work environment, and working at a place that makes you unhappy or stressed out. A general definition: a hostile work environment is one where the inappropriate behavior of your co-workers or managers targets you and interferes with your ability to do your job properly.

Possible signs that you are dealing with a hostile work environment include:

  • Name-calling
  • Inappropriate text messages, including “sexting” attempts
  • Inappropriate jokes
  • Offensive images displayed at work
  • A boss propositions you
  • The employer ignores evidence of harassment, or expects the victim to put up with it

The word “inappropriate” gets used a lot when discussing sexual harassment, just as we used it in the list above. This is a fairly conservative word that can describe some awful, despicable behavior, like making comments about a victim’s body or sex life, demanding sexual favors, forcing victims to look at pornography and so on.

Nobody should have to put up with this sort of toxic conduct at work. Victims have rights, including the right to sue if the employer won’t correct the offending workers. If the boss does not take a victim’s complaints seriously, perhaps a civil judgment will change his or her attitude toward sexual harassment.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.