Paul worked at Tanya's Toy Store in the mall Tanya had quite a sense of humor and would often tell jokes in her store. When she told the joke about the difference between an adult's toy and a child's toy. Paul was very upset by the joke and let Tanya know he was not amused. Tanya figured Paul was just shy and did not take it personally. Tanya was also very friendly and up behind Paul and rub his shoulders while talking suggestively to him. In fact, when a new supervisor position o 0.72 lenged Paul to compete for the job by taking her out on a date! When Paul refused to take Tanya on a date, she gave the supervisor's position to another employee. Paul was very upset by the whole incident and decided to file a claim for sexual harassment (both hostle work enviro hostile work environment and quid pro quo) against Tanya. A jury agreed that Paul had been subjected to a nd awarded him damages hostile work environment and to quid pro quo sexual harassment a But what if the facts of the case were different?

Because the harasser can be anyone with the inappropriate behavior. And the victm of sexual harassment does not necessarily have to be the person directly being harassed, the victim could be an employee who is indirectly but negatively affected by the offensive conduct.

So in this case, if Paul was the one making unwelcome sexual advances, or requesting sexual favors, and other verbal sexual conduct hostile to the work environment, or even a customer, the judge would agree with the claimer, meaning, the judge would rule the same.