Workplace sexual harassment is sometimes described in ways that make it sound relatively easy to identify: an inappropriate comment, an offensive joke, an unwanted invitation, or a coworker who refuses to respect boundaries.
But some of the most serious workplace harassment allegations involve something more complicated. A supervisor may have authority over an employee’s assignments, promotions, job security, reputation, or future opportunities. When that workplace power is used to pressure an employee into unwanted sexual conduct, the employee may feel trapped between protecting herself and protecting her career.
That is the central issue raised in our client’s lawsuit against PlanetArt and one of its supervisors.
According to the filed complaint, our client began working for the company in 2021 and later received a promotion. The lawsuit alleges that a supervisor with authority over employees began making sexual advances toward her and eventually subjected her to repeated unwanted sexual conduct.
The allegations are particularly serious because, according to the complaint, the supervisor repeatedly connected his sexual demands to his influence over our client’s employment.
When a Supervisor Refuses to Accept “No”
According to the complaint, the supervisor began making sexual advances toward our client in approximately 2022.
Our client alleges that the conduct included repeated requests for sexual activity and unwanted physical contact. She says she refused his advances and reminded him that she was married.
But according to the lawsuit, the refusals did not stop the conduct.
Instead, the supervisor allegedly became frustrated and told her that she owed him sexual favors because he had done things for her. The complaint alleges that he referenced buying her lunch, coffee, or gifts and claimed that he had protected her job.
He allegedly told her that she only received things from him and did not give anything in return.
That type of allegation illustrates why workplace coercion can be very different from an ordinary unwanted advance. The issue is not simply whether one employee is interested in another. The issue is whether a supervisor uses workplace authority, influence, or fear of professional consequences to pressure an employee into unwanted conduct.
“I Helped Your Career” Is Not Consent
The complaint alleges that the supervisor repeatedly emphasized his influence within the company.
According to the lawsuit, he claimed that he helped our client obtain a promotion by putting in a good word for her with a senior executive. He allegedly emphasized that he had significant influence because of his relationship with that executive and told our client that he could get her fired.
The complaint further alleges that he threatened to withdraw his workplace protection if she did not comply with his sexual demands.
These allegations highlight an important principle: professional assistance does not create a sexual obligation.
A supervisor does not gain the right to demand sexual conduct because he recommended an employee for a promotion. Buying an employee lunch does not create consent. Giving an employee a favorable assignment does not create consent. Helping an employee at work does not entitle a supervisor to anything sexual in return.
Employees should not be placed in a position where they believe their livelihood depends on complying with a supervisor’s sexual demands.
Fear of Losing a Job Can Shape an Employee’s Response
One difficult aspect of workplace sexual misconduct is that employees do not always respond in the way outsiders expect.
Someone experiencing coercion may freeze. She may try to avoid conflict. She may continue working with the person. She may delay reporting what happened. She may comply with demands because she believes refusing could cost her job.
According to the complaint, our client feared losing her employment and alleges that she sometimes froze or reluctantly complied because of that fear.
That context matters.
A workplace hierarchy can create a profound imbalance of power. A supervisor may control schedules, performance evaluations, promotions, assignments, discipline, or access to senior management. Even when the supervisor does not have unilateral power to fire someone, the employee may reasonably perceive that person as having substantial influence over her career.
The complaint alleges that this imbalance was repeatedly reinforced by the supervisor’s statements about his ability to protect our client’s job or harm her career.
The Alleged Conduct Continued Over Time
The lawsuit describes the alleged misconduct as repeated rather than isolated.
According to the complaint, our client sometimes arrived early at the office to participate in meetings with colleagues in different time zones. She alleges that the supervisor began arriving early as well so he could be alone with her and continue the unwanted conduct.
The complaint alleges that the behavior continued for a lengthy period.
This is another important aspect of workplace harassment cases. A single event can be serious, but repeated misconduct can create a work environment in which an employee begins changing her behavior simply to avoid the alleged harasser.
An employee may change her schedule, avoid certain rooms, stop attending events, ask coworkers to accompany her, or become anxious about being alone with a supervisor.
Eventually, continuing to work in that environment may feel impossible.
When Leaving the Job Is Not Really a Free Choice
According to the complaint, our client ultimately resigned from PlanetArt in 2024.
The lawsuit alleges that the working conditions had become so intolerable that she believed she had no reasonable alternative but to leave.
This type of allegation is often referred to as constructive discharge or constructive termination.
The basic idea is that a resignation may not always reflect an employee’s genuine desire to leave. In some circumstances, an employee may resign because the workplace conditions have allegedly become unbearable.
Our client’s complaint alleges that repeated sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor ultimately led her to leave her job.
That distinction matters because the employer may say, “She resigned,” while the employee’s position may be, “I left because continuing to work there had become intolerable.”
What Happens After the Employer Learns About the Allegations?
The complaint also focuses on what allegedly happened after the misconduct was reported.
According to the lawsuit, our client’s husband reported the alleged sexual harassment and assault to PlanetArt’s Human Resources Department after our client had left the company.
The complaint alleges that our client was not interviewed and was not informed of the results of any investigation. She also alleges that she was not offered her position back.
The lawsuit contends that the employer failed to adequately investigate, discipline, supervise, or otherwise respond to the alleged conduct.
The complaint includes claims for sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment and hostile work environment, sex discrimination, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive wrongful discharge, and retaliation.
These are allegations, and the defendants are entitled to dispute them. But the case illustrates why an employer’s response to reported misconduct can become an important part of a workplace harassment lawsuit.
Documentation Can Be Important
Employees experiencing harassment or coercion may feel overwhelmed, embarrassed, frightened, or uncertain about what to do next.
When possible, documentation can help.
Employees may want to preserve emails, text messages, workplace chat messages, calendar entries, performance reviews, and other communications. Writing down what happened soon after an incident can also help preserve details such as dates, locations, witnesses, and specific statements.
If a report is made to Human Resources or management, employees may also consider keeping copies of the report and any response they receive.
Documentation does not make the experience easier, but it can help preserve information that may become important later.
Workplace Authority Should Never Become Sexual Leverage
The central lesson from our client’s case is that workplace authority should never be used as sexual leverage.
A promotion is not a sexual transaction. Favorable treatment is not consent. Job protection does not create a personal debt. And an employee should never be made to believe that keeping her job depends on satisfying a supervisor’s sexual demands.
When sexual misconduct is tied to threats, promotions, workplace influence, or fear of termination, the employee may face pressures that are difficult for someone outside the situation to appreciate.
Our client’s lawsuit alleges exactly that kind of workplace dynamic.
If you have experienced sexual harassment, sexual coercion, sexual assault, or unwanted conduct from a supervisor or coworker, Makarem & Associates can help you understand your rights and evaluate the circumstances of your case.
This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described have not been proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name has been withheld out of respect for her privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Contact FormCall us: 800-610-9646
Email us: [email protected]
