Same-Sex Harassment at Work: NJ Law Protects You Regardless of Gender Combination

Sexual harassment is seen as something that only happens between people of different genders. In New Jersey, harassment between employees of the same gender is evaluated under the same standards as any other hostile work environment claim.

Same-sex offence is often dismissed or minimized in the workplace. In many cases we have seen at Brandon J. Broderick, employees are told the conduct is “just joking”, banter, a personality issue, or not serious because it doesn’t fit a typical narrative. The law doesn’t rely on assumptions. It examines the conduct and its effect on working conditions.

Sex-based harassment is protected under the law, even when the offender and the target are the same gender.

This article breaks down how harassment is evaluated under the law, how courts look at conduct between employees of the same gender, what kinds of behavior cross the legal line, and when it makes sense to speak with a sexual harassment lawyer in New Jersey.

Same-Sex Harassment Is Recognized Under Federal and New Jersey Law

Same-sex harassment has been clearly recognized for decades under both federal law and New Jersey law. 

The key case is Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., where the U.S. Supreme Court held that workplace sexual harassment is unlawful under Title VII even when the offender and the victim are of the same sex. 

New Jersey law offers broader protection. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) prohibits discrimination based on orientation and gender identity or expression. In many cases, the conduct overlaps with homophobic jokes from coworkers or stereotypes about how someone should act.

Harassment doesn’t require proof of sexual attraction. It might involve explicit behavior. Sometimes, it involves repeated comments about a person’s body or rumors about private life. It could also appear as degrading language, aimed at someone for not fitting gender expectations. 

New Jersey courts follow a clear standard for these cases. In Lehmann v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court set out the test for a hostile work environment. A plaintiff must show that the conduct was based on a protected characteristic and was severe or pervasive.

Same-sex misconduct is evaluated under the same standard. That includes cases like man-on-man harassment in the workplace. The law doesn’t apply a different or lower threshold, because the harm is viewed the same. Speaking with a sexual harassment attorney in New Jersey can help clarify how the law applies.

How Same-Sex and Man-on-Man Harassment Appears in New Jersey Workplaces

Same-sex harassment shows up in ways that employers often dismiss or mislabel. Some cases involve direct and explicit conduct. Others involve behavior that is not overtly sexual but still targets a person because of sex, orientation, or gender expression.

Physical conduct is a clear example. Invading personal space, grabbing, blocking movement, or unwanted touching at team events crosses the line. Verbal conduct is equally important. Repeated jokes and graphic remarks about a coworker’s body create a hostile environment when they persist or escalate.

This type of behavior can blend into workplace culture and go unnoticed at first. It is often written off as banter, joking, hazing, inappropriate pranks, or rough humor. Those labels do not change how the law looks at it. Courts focus on the conduct itself, not how people explain it later. In 2025, the EEOC recovered $660 million for workers affected by discrimination.

A common pattern in man-on-man harassment in the workplace involves humiliation disguised as humor. One worker becomes the target of repeated gestures or rumors. Coworkers may question his masculinity or use slurs. This conduct isolates the employee and changes how others treat him.

Other patterns appear across different industries:

• Repeated use of anti-gay slurs or insults 
• Mocking a coworker for not acting “masculine enough” or “feminine enough”
• Sharing explicit images, messages, or videos in group chats involving coworkers
• Making charged comments about a coworker’s body or clothing
• Spreading rumors about a coworker’s private life or orientation
• Physical contact that crosses into unwanted behavior
• Assigning degrading nicknames

None of this requires a romantic or sexual interest. It can stem from hostility or power dynamics. What matters is whether the conduct targets someone because of a protected trait and how it alters working conditions.

Not all harassment looks sexually explicit. In our work at Brandon J. Broderick, gender-policing behavior often appears in same-sex cases. Workers who don’t fit expected norms are targeted through comments about voice, mannerisms, clothing, or appearance. The same conduct continues through texts, internal messaging, emails, or social media tied to work. 

When Same-Sex Conduct Becomes Illegal Harassment Under New Jersey Law

Not every offensive comment or awkward interaction creates a legal claim. New Jersey draws a line between general workplace behavior and unlawful harassment. 

A plaintiff must prove two key points. First, the conduct occurred because of sex or another protected characteristic under the NJLAD. Second, the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make the work environment hostile to a reasonable person in the same position.

Courts look at the total picture. A single incident involving physical assault or extreme behavior meets the standard on its own. Less severe conduct may still qualify when it happens repeatedly over time. 

Frequency and context matter. A few comments over a long period or an awkward joke usually don’t meet the standard. A heated argument between coworkers isn’t enough on its own. A pattern of comments targeting someone’s sex, sexual orientation, or gender expression is different.

Courts also consider how the conduct impacts the employee’s ability to work. They look at:

• Whether the conduct was unwelcome and directed at the employee
• Its connection to sexual orientation or gender expression
• The frequency and duration of the behavior
• Any physical contact or threats involved
• How a reasonable person in the same position would view it
• Whether supervisors were aware or should have been aware of the conduct

New Jersey law also recognizes two types of sexual harassment. A hostile work environment develops through ongoing conduct. Quid pro quo harassment involves a supervisor linking job benefits or consequences to suggestive behavior. Same-sex cases can involve either type, although hostile environment claims appear more often.

Each claim depends on the facts. Workplace labels don’t determine the outcome. Courts look at the conduct and its effect on the employee.

Same-Sex Harassment and How Employer Liability Is Evaluated in NJ

Employer responsibility plays a central role in harassment claims under the NJLAD. New Jersey courts focus on who engaged in the conduct and how the employer responded. When a supervisor is involved, the standard is higher. Supervisors have authority over employees, so their actions carry more weight. Employers are held responsible, especially when it creates an abusive atmosphere.

With coworker conduct, the focus is different. Liability depends on the employer’s knowledge of the conduct and failure to take meaningful action. Dismissing reports, ignoring complaints, downplaying incidents, or taking incomplete steps increases the risk. In our experience, many cases are mishandled during internal investigations. In 2023, roughly 22% of employees reported that their mental health declined because of work, and a similar share reported workplace harassment. The patterns overlap when issues aren’t addressed early.

Common examples include:

• Dismissing complaints as joking or harmless banter
• Treating male victims as less credible or less affected
• Failing to investigate because the conduct involves the same sex
• Assuming the behavior reflects personality conflicts instead of bias
• Ignoring reports involving anti-gay slurs or gender-based ridicule
• Delaying corrective action until the conduct escalates

Each of these responses conflicts with the NJLAD’s requirements. Employers must maintain a workplace free from harassment based on protected characteristics. This duty doesn’t shift based on gender pairing.

How Same-Sex Harassment Claims Come Together Under New Jersey Law

A single case may involve harassment, sexual orientation bias, and gender identity discrimination at the same time. Sometimes retaliation can also follow when an employee raises concerns and then faces discipline, performance issues, demotion, or termination.

Federal law supports that overlap. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that discrimination based on orientation or identity falls within Title VII. The ruling aligns with the NJLAD.

Workplace conduct isn’t limited to the office. Harassment carries into group chats, team-building events, after-hours training, and digital communication tied to work. When those spaces contribute to an abusive environment, they are part of the legal analysis. Employers cannot ignore them.

In many cases, attention is placed on the gender of the people involved instead of the conduct itself. Labels are used to downplay what happened, while the impact on the employee is overlooked. New Jersey law looks at the context and the effect on working conditions.

When conduct crosses the line, the fact that both individuals share the same sex does not shield the employer from liability. If you believe you have experienced harassment or retaliation in the workplace, it helps to get clear guidance early. Contact us today for a free consultation.