Enough Already: Workplace Sexual Harassment by Supervisors Remains Rampant

By Deborah J. Hopkins, April 28, 2026

Workplace sexual harassment is widespread in this country. While the latest headlines have focused on members of Congress accused of sexual misconduct and sexual assault against staffers, these behaviors are certainly not confined to Capitol Hill.

For decades the law has said that unwelcome conduct based on sex is off limits in the workplace. See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Yet here we are again – or should I say, still.

Consider Stephany K. v DOD, EEOC App. No. 2021003668 (Nov. 6, 2023). The complainant, a WG-4 Store Worker at the Fort Campbell Commissary, alleged harassment based on sex after the Assistant Commissary Officer (Assistant CO) subjected her to sexual propositions, unwanted physical contact, comments of a sexual nature and comments focused on her body, which ultimately forced her to resign. Id. at 2.

Here’s a sampling of the Assistant CO’s conduct:

• Made sexual remarks to the complainant including, “I’m getting thick.”
• Asked the complainant whether she had a sweetheart because “[her] bottom was growing.”
• Hit the complainant on the buttocks as they were leaving his office. After she told him it made her uncomfortable, he said he wouldn’t do it again, but he just had an urge to feel her bottom.
• On another occasion swatted the complainant’s bottom, then cupped it, and told her not to report him.
• Told the complainant she was beautiful and not to flirt with the drivers.
• Told the complainant she wasn’t getting pleased right and if she wanted “him to kiss [her] down below just let him know.”
• Asked the complainant when was the last time she was “pleased,” and that he could please her because his wife was moving to another state.
• Called the complainant on her work phone and asked her if she was thinking about coming over because his wife was gone and “now was the time.”

Id.

This caused the complaint’s mental health to decline such that she had a mental breakdown and had to be observed for 72 hours. Upon her return to work she reported the Assistant CO’s behavior to a manager, but because the manager took no action, the complainant found the working conditions intolerable and resigned a few weeks later. Id. at 3.

The manager who received the allegations revealed she had noticed a change in the complainant, including the complainant’s hysterical behavior and choice to start wearing layers of clothes. The manager also said she “did not report it or take any action because Complainant did not ask her to initiate an inquiry.” Id. The Final Agency Decision found the complainant was not subjected to unlawful harassment, so the complainant appealed to EEOC. Id.

According to the Commission:

We find that the Agency’s decision erred in concluding that Complainant did not establish that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the Assistant CO. The record indicates that during the course of Complainant’s employment at the Agency, the Assistant CO subjected Complainant to repeated and frequent sexual innuendos and statements, which included unwanted physical touching as Complainant alleged there were at least two different incidents where the Assistant CO touched her buttocks. … The record further supports that the Assistant CO made inappropriate comments to Complainant which included calling her on the store phone and telling her to come over to his house because his wife was gone. We find that these actions were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an abusive work environment.

Id. at 6.

The Commission also noted that the Assistant CO was second in command in the workplace and told the complainant more than once not to report him. Despite the Assistant CO’s testimony denying the allegations, the Commission found the complainant’s version of events supported by preponderant evidence. Id. at 6.

The agency argued it should not be liable for damages because it removed the Assistant CO after receiving the harassment allegations, but EEOC disagreed because:

• The Assistant CO was the appellant’s fourth-line supervisor,
• The manager who received the allegations did not report the harassment,
• The agency took no corrective action, and
• The Assistant CO’s removal did not occur until months after the allegations were made.

Id. at 7-8.

The EEOC also found that “a reasonable person would have found these working conditions to be intolerable and therefore, Complainant has established that she was subjected to constructive discharge.” Id. at 9.

While the main problem here is the Assistant CO’s inappropriate behavior, the agency also made countless mistakes along the way, which cost it not only back pay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees – but also caused harm to the complainant, which sadly can never be undone. hopkins@feltg.com

Related training

• Conducting Effective Harassment Investigations, May 19-21, 2026
• EEO Counselor and Investigator Refresher Training, June 3-4, 2026
• Advanced EEO: Navigating Complex Issues, June 23-25, 2026
• EEOC Law Week, Sept. 21-25, 2026
• Stay up to Date: Hostile Work Environment Harassment in 2026 (recorded April 16, 2026)

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.