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

There is a glaring loophole in American labor law that leaves millions of workers vulnerable to severe mistreatment. If an employee is harassed or undermined because of their race, gender, religion, or age, they have clear legal recourse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But if a manager is an equal-opportunity abuser, or if a group of colleagues targets a worker simply because they feel threatened by their competence, the behavior is perfectly legal.[6]

This gap has given rise to a growing legislative movement centered around the proposed Workplace Psychological Safety Act (WPSA). Drafted by advocacy groups and introduced in multiple state legislatures—including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York—the bill seeks to fundamentally rewrite the psychological contract between employers and employees.[1][2]

The WPSA aims to create a direct legal cause of action for workplace bullying and mobbing. Unlike existing discrimination laws, it would not require victims to prove that the abuse was motivated by their membership in a protected class. Instead, it focuses entirely on the impact of the behavior, holding employers liable for creating or tolerating a toxic work environment.[1]

Advocates argue this legislation is desperately needed to address an epidemic of psychosocial harm. According to the 2024 U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, 32.3% of American workers—approximately 52.2 million people—report being directly bullied at work. The toll on human health and economic productivity is staggering.[5]

Workplace bullying rarely looks like the overt yelling or physical intimidation seen on television. More often, it takes the form of "mobbing"—a systematic campaign of psychological abuse where a target is isolated, falsely accused of incompetence, and subjected to relentless gaslighting.[1]

In a typical mobbing scenario, a threatened individual begins undermining a competent colleague. When the target reports the behavior, management often prioritizes liability avoidance over intervention. The complaint process is dragged out, the target is increasingly marginalized, and they are eventually pushed out through resignation or termination. The employer avoids legal consequences, while the worker absorbs the psychological and financial damage.[1]

The health impacts of this dynamic are severe. Prolonged exposure to toxic work environments is linked to chronic stress, anxiety, clinical depression, and cardiovascular disease. A recent report by the International Labour Organization estimated that psychosocial risk factors at work are linked to 840,000 deaths globally each year.[1][6]

Armed with these statistics, the WPSA has gained significant momentum in 2026. In Massachusetts, the bill recently advanced to the Senate Ways and Means Committee months ahead of schedule. In Rhode Island, the state Senate has passed versions of the legislation multiple times, though it has historically stalled in the House. Grassroots teams are currently pushing the framework in more than 25 states.[1][2]

However, as the legislation gains traction, it is facing formidable pushback from an unexpected coalition of organizational psychologists, legal scholars, and civil liberties defenders. Their concern is not that workplace bullying is acceptable, but that "psychological safety" cannot be successfully mandated by law.[3][4]

The concept of psychological safety was pioneered by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson. In her research, psychological safety is defined as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking—meaning employees feel comfortable speaking up, sharing hard truths, and admitting mistakes without fear of retaliation.[3]

Edmondson and her colleague Michaela Kerrissey recently warned that the WPSA fundamentally misunderstands this concept. They argue that psychological safety is not a guarantee of job security, nor is it a promise that an employee will never feel discomfort. Rather, it is a cultural trait built interaction by interaction, which requires rigorous candor and constructive debate.[3]

Critics warn that legislating psychological safety could create a chilling effect on that very candor. If the legal threshold for a lawsuit includes behaviors that "confuse" or "weaken" an employee, managers may become terrified to offer necessary critical feedback. The fear of litigation could replace open communication with a culture of silence and artificial politeness.[3][5]

Furthermore, legal scholars point out a dangerous unintended consequence: the law could easily be weaponized by the bullies themselves. A toxic employee who receives legitimate pushback for poor performance or disruptive behavior could threaten to sue their employer, claiming that the feedback violated their right to dignity and psychological safety.[5]

Civil liberties organizations have also raised alarms. The ACLU of Rhode Island formally opposed the state's version of the WPSA, arguing that its broad and subjective definitions of psychological abuse could infringe upon First Amendment protections by attempting to regulate routine personal interactions and interpersonal friction.[4]

Acknowledging these pitfalls, some legal experts are proposing alternative frameworks. The Workplace Bullying Accountability Act (WBAA), for example, shifts the focus away from individual lawsuits over emotional distress. Instead, it imposes a proactive "duty of care" on employers to implement anti-bullying policies, conduct annual training, and establish clear internal reporting procedures.[5]

This alternative approach mirrors how organizations handle physical safety under OSHA regulations: focusing on systemic prevention and hazard reduction rather than waiting for an injury to occur and litigating the aftermath. It aims to protect workers without creating a paralyzing fear of liability over everyday workplace disagreements.[5][6]

Whether through the strict liability of the WPSA or the preventive framework of the WBAA, the consensus is shifting. The era of treating severe workplace psychological abuse as a legally protected management style is drawing to a close. As the modern economy increasingly relies on collaborative knowledge work, ensuring that employees can operate without fear of targeted mobbing is no longer just a moral imperative—it is an economic necessity.[6]