Forcible Kissing, Comments About Lingerie, and References to Porn: What NOT to Do if You’re a Rear Admiral with an Attractive Colleague

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, August 12, 2025

Imagine you’re a female civilian Public Affairs Specialist. Your job involves building and managing relationships betweenheadshot of Deb your agency and its stakeholders – including the media and members of the public – and you enjoy sharing all the positive work your agency is doing.

Now imagine the highest-ranking official in your workplace, a male Rear Admiral, does the following to you at work:

  • In January, he asks you to do him a favor by speaking to your husband about something – and he suggests you wear sexy lingerie to persuade your husband.
  • On several dates in August, he gives you a “high five,” but instead of flat-palm contact he interlaces his fingers with yours.
  • In October, while he’s telling a story, he demonstrates an event from the story by physically turning you around and placing his back against your back.
  • In October or November, while you’re standing by your desk, he approaches you and asks if a picture of you on your computer is a profile picture or a “porn” picture.
  • In November, he asks you what is wrong with your hair, commenting that “it looked like you had a little morning action.” When you reply neutrally that you had been wearing a hat, he once again alludes to your sex life.
  • In early December, he grabs your face and kisses you on the mouth.

Unfortunately this is no hypothetical – this happened to one of your Federal colleagues in her workplace, and she filed an EEO complaint alleging a hostile work environment based on sex. Susan M. v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2022001003 (Jun. 12, 2023).

The agency’s own investigation substantiated the allegations and found that the Rear Admiral engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct toward the complainant, and violated the agency’s sexual harassment policies. Id. at 2. In fact, the incidents were serious enough to warrant an IG investigation and the removal of Rear Admiral as Commander. Id.

On appeal to EEOC, the Agency argued that because it took prompt and effective corrective action when it removed the Rear Admiral, there was no basis for imputing liability. But because the Rear Admiral was the highest-ranking official at the facility, the Commission found the “alter ego” theory of liability was appropriate. The alter ego theory applies in a harassment case where the harasser is of sufficiently high rank to be treated as the Agency’s proxy, resulting in his conduct being directly imputed to the Agency – regardless of the agency’s anti-harassment efforts. See Sebek v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00005 (March 8, 2001). Id. at 3.

The fact that the complainant reported the harassment within days of the December kissing event contradicted an additional agency argument that the complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities.

The Commission concluded the agency was liable for the Rear Admiral’s harassing conduct, and that it was sufficient to create a hostile and offensive work environment. hopkins@feltg.com

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.