Woman gets the cold shoulder after she rejects male supervisor’s sexual advances

“I know Sarah was really upset when she didn’t get that promotion,” said Supervisor Nathan Hawkins, “but it’s hard to believe she’s suing us over it.”

“Sarah claims she was the next person in line for that position and that she’d been promised the job for several years,” replied HR Director Carolyn McGill. “She thinks she was turned down for the position in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. She’s suing us for retaliation.”

“What? No way,” said Nathan. “Sarah’s allegations are misguided. For one thing, she filed her first complaint of sexual harassment more than one year before she was denied the promotion. That’s a pretty long time for us to harbor a grudge.”

“Sarah acknowledges that there was a significant length of time between her first internal complaint and the promotion denial,” said Carolyn, “but she points out that she was turned down for the job less than one month after she’d contacted the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Sarah told the EEOC that her male boss was harassing her. She says he often made comments about her physical appearance and that he let her know that he was no longer sleeping with his wife.”

“Yeah, sure, Sarah’s boss shouldn’t have brought his personal life into the workplace,” said Nathan.

“According to Sarah,” said Carolyn, “there was more to it than that. She says her boss sexually propositioned her, but when she told him she wasn’t interested in pursuing a relationship with him, he blew his stack and started treating her very poorly. He exhibited a cold, biting and sarcastic attitude toward her. And she notes that when she filed her internal claim of sexual harassment – which was supposed to be confidential – the investigator told her boss that she’d complained about him. She says he immediately escalated his troublesome conduct toward her.”

“Sarah’s boss behaved in an unprofessional manner,” said Nathan, “but I’m not sure what that has to do with her promotion denial.”

“Sarah says she sought the promotion right after she’d contacted the EEOC,” said Carolyn, “but she was never given a fair shot at the job. She says she was the most qualified candidate for the position, but she wasn’t even selected to interview for the opening. Instead, an individual with considerably less relevant experience was chosen.”

“We thought the person we picked was the strongest candidate,” said Nathan. “We should challenge this lawsuit.”

Result: The employer lost. The court refused to dismiss the case. The judge ruled that the female staff member might have been retaliated against because she’d filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment.

Yes, said the court, the woman’s first internal complaint of harassment was submitted more than one year prior to the promotion denial. However, the denial came about one month after she’d told the EEOC about the sexual harassment.

The judge also noted that the woman was the most experienced candidate seeking the position, but she was never even granted an interview. Plus, she was the next person in line for the job and she’d been led to believe she’d get the position once it opened up.

And the court was unimpressed by the employer’s failure to keep the woman’s internal complaint of harassment confidential. Once the alleged harasser learned she’d reported him, he escalated his untoward conduct toward her.

Cite: Ervin v. District of Columbia, U.S. District Court, D. DC, No. 23-cv-3678, 7/24/26.

(From the August 7, 2026, issue of HR Managers Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)