* submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
* submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
* such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])"
The question then is, are any of these allegations in violation of the legal description of sexual harassment and has the target been convicted of this in a criminal court. Notoriously no one should recognize the actions of a settlement as a basis for anything relating to reality.
This is exactly the case when judgments occur awarding stupid people for scalding their crotches with hot coffee. Otherwise McDonalds would have been sued for serving cold coffee.
My understanding is that when it’s a subordinate/superior relationship, the threat to the job is implied/understood. If you were my equal and made those advances, then my job isn’t on the line; I’ve just been harrassed. However, if you are my superior and did the exact same thing, it’s implied my job is threatened because if I refuse you have the power to affect my job.
And you might want to do some research on the McDonald’s coffee thing. I read they were warned several times before that incident that they were keeping their coffee too hot (because it kept it ‘fresher’ tasting and they didn’t have to make it so often); that incident was the straw that broke the camel’s back.