No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment.

I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace?

https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment

From that page:

> Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.

The article specifically calls out harassment on the basis of protected class. But to read this as saying that unwelcome conduct, so long as it is not on the basis of protected class, isn't harassment is not a correct interpretation.

A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?

Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."

> Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."

As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.

Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.

Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states:

>Harassment is a form of employment discrimination...

It goes on to say:

>Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.

So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what you claim is true, then in the above scenario you would not be able to claim harassment with respect to a co-worker that constantly insults you.

And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.

> Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.

No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up).

> "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment?

It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.

So your answer is yes? Under your understanding of harassment, someone can relentlessly bully and insult their co-worker all day long and it isn't workplace harassment so long as it doesn't refer to protected class?

That is the legal definition, yes. I'm not making any statement about how I think things should be. I'm making commentary only on the current legal definitions in the US.

To elaborate, a workplace certainly could take action on such harassment, as they have the right to associate how they please. But they are also free to not do that. And in fact many people face workplace harassment every day, but have no recourse except to suck it up.

Personally, I absolutely support stronger protections for workers, but they don't exist today.

These words have specific legal meanings in specific contexts. What you are describing is technically bullying and not harassment. Bullying is often illegal, but it isn't regulated to the same degree on the federal level as harassment.

I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.