Is Workplace Bullying Illegal? Where It Is, and Where Not

Whether workplace bullying is illegal depends on where you work and on how the behavior is described. In a few places, such as Sweden, France and Quebec, bullying-type conduct is addressed by name in workplace rules or law. In many others, including the United States (at the federal level) and the United Kingdom, there is no law against “bullying” as such, but behavior that amounts to harassment, discrimination or a forced resignation can be unlawful.

This post is information, not legal advice. Laws change, and every country, state and case is different. Where a claim below depends on a jurisdiction, it names the place and the source, and the facts were checked in September 2026. If you may have a legal claim, speak to an employment lawyer, a union representative or a local advice service. Time limits can be short.

The short answer: it depends on the label

The same behavior can be “bullying” in conversation, “harassment” in one country’s law, and nothing at all in another’s. That is why the words matter.

The International Labour Organization’s Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), gives a broad international definition. Article 1 says “violence and harassment” in the world of work refers to a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices, or threats of them, whether a single occurrence or repeated, that aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm. It also says national laws may use a single concept or separate concepts. So a country can meet the treaty’s spirit through one law or several.

Most national laws are narrower than that. They usually turn on a link to a protected characteristic, on repetition, or on harm to dignity or health. The rest of this post shows how a few places do it.

Where bullying is named in law

Sweden. In 1993 the Swedish Board of Occupational Safety and Health issued a regulation, AFS 1993:17, on what it called kränkande särbehandling (roughly, demeaning or degrading treatment) at work. It was decided on 21 September 1993 and took effect on 31 March 1994. It defined the term as repeated, blameworthy or negatively charged acts directed at individual employees in an offensive way, which can lead to them being placed outside the workplace community. It required employers to plan work so as to prevent such treatment, to make clear it is not accepted, and to have routines for helping affected employees.

The rule has been replaced twice. AFS 2015:4 took effect in 2016 and was itself repealed. The current regulation, AFS 2023:2, took effect on 1 January 2025 and repeals AFS 2015:4. Its section 10 requires the employer to make clear that this treatment is not accepted, and to take measures against conditions that can give rise to it. Section 11 requires routines for how employees can report it and how it is handled.

Two features matter. The regulation sets duties for employers, not a personal claim procedure of its own. And the Swedish Work Environment Authority says it supervises employers’ systematic work on this and does not take a position in individual cases.

France. Article L1152-1 of the Labour Code says that no employee should suffer repeated acts of harcèlement moral (moral harassment) that have the purpose or effect of degrading their working conditions in a way that may harm their rights and dignity, damage their physical or mental health, or compromise their professional future (our translation). The provision came from a 2002 law, Loi n° 2002-73 of 17 January 2002, which also inserted a criminal offence of moral harassment into the Penal Code (article 222-33-2). France’s provision therefore speaks directly to the individual worker’s protection.

Quebec, Canada. Section 81.18 of the Act respecting labour standards defines psychological harassment as vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and results in a harmful work environment. It adds that a single serious incidence with a lasting harmful effect may also count. Section 81.19 says every employee has a right to a work environment free from psychological harassment, and that employers must take reasonable action to prevent it and, once aware, to put a stop to it. Employers must also adopt a prevention and complaint processing policy.

Ontario, Canada. Ontario’s official guidance to its Occupational Health and Safety Act defines workplace harassment as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, and requires employers to have a harassment policy and program.

These are not the only examples, and they are not equal in strength or scope. Note that some of them, like Sweden’s, mainly put duties on employers, while others, like France’s, also state the individual’s protection directly.

The international standard: ILO Convention 190

ILO C190 came into force on 25 June 2021. According to the ILO’s NORMLEX database, it had 56 ratifications on 20 September 2026. The list includes France (12 April 2023), Canada (30 January 2023), the United Kingdom (7 March 2022), Germany (14 June 2023), Ireland (12 January 2023) and Australia (9 June 2023). The list does not include the United States or Sweden. You can check the current list yourself, because it changes as countries ratify.

Under Article 4, each country that ratifies commits to respect, promote and realize the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment, and to adopt an inclusive, integrated and gender-responsive approach that includes prohibiting violence and harassment in law. Article 10 asks countries to make remedies and reporting procedures easy to access.

Ratification binds the state. Whether you can rely on it in a case, and how, depends on the country. Think of it as pressure on national law, not a personal right you can invoke in every workplace.

Where there is no bullying law: what “harassment” covers

United States. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) describes unlawful harassment as unwelcome conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, older age, disability or genetic information. It becomes unlawful where enduring it is a condition of continued employment, or where it is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive. The EEOC also says petty slights, annoyances and isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, will not rise to the level of illegality, and that retaliation for complaining is prohibited. There are deadlines: a charge generally must be filed within 180 calendar days, extended to 300 where a state or local agency enforces a law against discrimination on the same basis.

Bullying that is not tied to a protected characteristic sits mostly outside this framework. The Workplace Bullying Institute, which campaigns for a change, wrote in March 2022 that its Healthy Workplace Bill had been introduced in 31 states and two US territories and had passed, in the bill’s spirit, only in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico’s law is Act No. 90-2020, approved on 7 August 2020, which declares a public policy against workplace harassment and requires employers to adopt policies and protocols against it. Its 2025 legislative update, from June 2025, describes bills in Massachusetts, New York (where S1893 passed the Senate Labor Committee on 20 May 2025) and West Virginia. Bills at committee stage are not law, and this status may have changed since, so check its site for the latest.

United Kingdom. Acas, the UK’s workplace advice service, says there is no specific law against bullying. But bullying can be discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act 2010 if it relates to a protected characteristic. Separately, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment, which the Act treats as conduct on at least two occasions. It is a general law, not limited to work, and the section applies in England and Wales. A worker who resigns because the employer has seriously breached the employment contract can also bring a constructive dismissal claim. As of 20 September 2026, Acas says you typically need two years’ service, with some exceptions, and that the time limit is three months minus one day. Both are changing. Acas says that from 1 October 2026 the time limit for most claims rises to six months minus one day, but only where your time limit starts on or after that date. Acas also says that from 1 January 2027 employees will be able to claim unfair dismissal after six months in a job instead of two years, and its constructive dismissal page does not yet say how that applies to constructive dismissal claims, so ask an adviser which rule covers your dates. The Field Guide entry on constructive dismissal explains the pattern behind it.

What this means for you

Three points help you read the map.

Illegal does not mean provable. Even where a law exists, you need facts, dates and usually evidence. Many thresholds are high, such as “severe or pervasive,” a defined link to a protected trait, or a “course of conduct.”

Most patterns do not fit a legal category neatly. Exclusion, quiet undermining and shifting goalposts can add up to real harm without a single unlawful act. The Field Guide entry on workplace ostracism and social exclusion describes a pattern that law rarely names.

Deadlines matter. The clock often starts at the last incident or at your resignation. Find out early which deadline applies to you.

What to do where there is no law, or none that fits

• Keep a same-day, factual record. The post on [how to document workplace bullying](/blog/how-to-document-workplace-bullying/) shows how, and the Field Guide entry on [documenting contemporaneously](/guide/document-contemporaneously/) explains why.
• Read your employer's written policies. A policy that names bullying gives you a standard even where the law does not.
• Use internal routes with realistic expectations. The post on [whether to go to HR about bullying](/blog/should-i-go-to-hr-about-bullying/) and the entry on [knowing the HR reality and when to exit](/guide/know-the-hr-reality-when-to-exit/) explain what HR can and cannot do.
• Ask a union or staff representative, and get legal advice before you resign or sign anything.
• Plan an exit on your own timeline if the process does not work. That is a decision, not a defeat.
• Look after your health. If the toll is high, the entry on [when it's bigger than a website](/guide/when-its-bigger-than-a-website/) explains when professional help makes sense.

Why the gap matters

The distance between what people go through and what the law names is the reason this site exists. Our mission page explains the goal of legal recognition alongside education and cultural change, and it lists milestones with sources. A law is a last resort, and most of the damage happens long before anyone calls a lawyer. Still, it matters that the law says, in public, that this harm is real.

Whatever the law says where you live, remember that this is a pattern, not a diagnosis. You cannot diagnose another person, and you do not need to. You can protect yourself with a record, informed choices and support.

Sources