The Push to Make Workplace Bullying Illegal: Inside the 'Psychological Safety Act'

The American workplace harbors a glaring legal loophole: it is perfectly legal for a manager to be relentlessly abusive, provided they are an "equal opportunity" abuser. While federal law strictly prohibits harassment based on race, gender, or religion, a boss who berates, humiliates, and psychologically torments employees without a discriminatory motive is largely shielded from civil liability.[1][4]

A growing coalition of state lawmakers and labor advocates is now pushing to close this gap. The Workplace Psychological Safety Act (WPSA), a piece of model legislation gaining unprecedented momentum in statehouses from Rhode Island to New York, proposes a radical shift in employment law. It would grant employees the explicit right to sue for civil damages over severe psychological abuse and bullying, regardless of their demographic background.[1][3]

To understand the mechanics of the WPSA, one must first understand the limitations of current civil rights law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from hostile environments, but only if the hostility is rooted in a protected class. If an employee cannot prove that the abuse is tied to their identity, their harassment claim is almost guaranteed to be dismissed by a judge.[2]

For workers bullied for other reasons—such as professional jealousy, retaliation for whistleblowing, or simply a manager's toxic personality—the only traditional legal recourse is a tort claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). However, courts require the conduct in an IIED claim to be "extreme and outrageous," a nearly impossible threshold that leaves the vast majority of bullying victims without a remedy.[2]

The WPSA fundamentally rewrites this baseline. It defines psychological abuse as mentally provocative harassment that meaningfully impairs an employee's mental health. By setting the standard at a "toxic work environment," the legislation aligns general workplace abuse with the evidentiary standards currently used in sexual harassment law.[1][3]

Beyond opening the door to civil lawsuits, the legislation imposes proactive, structural mandates on employers. Companies would be required to conduct annual anonymous workplace climate surveys, report aggregated data to designated state labor agencies, and implement formal anti-bullying policies and managerial training.[3]

The push for the legislation is backed by stark public health and economic data. Surveys indicate that nearly 70% of workers have experienced or witnessed workplace bullying at some point in their careers, leading to severe anxiety, depression, and a decline in overall physical health.[3]

The macroeconomic toll is equally staggering. Research by Stanford University professor Jeffrey Pfeffer estimates that workplace stress and toxic management practices account for 120,000 excess deaths annually in the United States, adding roughly $180 billion in preventable healthcare costs to the economy.[1]

Advocates argue that the current legal framework negatively incentivizes employers. Because companies are not explicitly liable for the psychological harm caused by equal-opportunity bullies, they often choose to avoid addressing the issue, prioritizing the protection of high-producing toxic managers over the well-being of the broader staff.[1]

However, the legislation faces fierce and well-funded opposition from corporate interest groups and management defense attorneys. They argue that the bill is overly broad, highly subjective, and could easily weaponize standard performance management.[2]

Employer defense firms warn that the threat of civil liability could discourage managers from pushing for excellence. They argue that critical feedback, demanding deadlines, or blunt performance reviews could be misconstrued by an underperforming employee as "psychological abuse," leading to a flood of frivolous litigation.[2]

Surprisingly, the bill has also drawn scrutiny from civil liberties organizations. The ACLU of Rhode Island has formally warned that attempting to legislate a "workplace civility code" could trigger significant First Amendment and due process violations, arguing that the state cannot legally mandate how individuals interact in private employment settings.[4]

Despite the pushback, the legislative momentum is palpable. Rhode Island's version of the bill has repeatedly passed the state Senate, while similar measures are advancing in Massachusetts and New York. Advocates are currently working to introduce the framework in nearly two dozen other states.[1][3]

Proponents frequently point to Puerto Rico as a successful proof of concept. In 2020, the territory passed Act 90-2020, becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to enact comprehensive anti-bullying legislation. The law allows employees to sue for damages over malicious, repetitive abusive conduct and requires employers to adopt preventive policies.

In a global context, the United States remains a distinct outlier. Much of the industrialized world, including several European nations, already explicitly protects workers from psychological abuse without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. The WPSA aims to bring American labor standards into alignment with these international norms.[1]

As the 2026 legislative sessions progress, the Workplace Psychological Safety Act represents a critical inflection point for labor rights. Whether it passes in a single state this year or requires another decade of advocacy, the legal definition of a safe workplace is undeniably expanding to include the mind as well as the body.[4]