A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

When is it a workplace romance, and when is it sexual harassment?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

A common defense to workplace sexual harassment claims is consent. In other words, an accused supervisor may say that the plaintiff welcomed his or her sexual comments or advances, or that the two parties engaged in a sexual relationship. Whether the defendant’s conduct was welcome to the plaintiff or not may become a key point of any sexual harassment lawsuit.

Everybody in California has the right not to be subjected to quid pro quo arrangements involving sex, or a toxic environment of inappropriate comments, touching and so forth. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for people to meet at work and fall in love, even when one person is the other person’s supervisor or boss. How does the law distinguish between sexual harassment and a workplace affair that went bad without any laws being broken?

A recent ruling from a federal judge in California may shed some light. The plaintiff in the case worked at Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base in San Diego County. She and the defendant, her supervisor, dated “on-again/off-again,” both before she worked at Pendleton and during her employment there.

According to the plaintiff, she only consented to the relationship due to pressure from the defendant, and because she was afraid of losing her job. She said she suffered retaliation for fighting against sexual harassment at her job, and for reporting being harassed to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She also said that co-workers gossiped and harassed her because of her perceived position of privilege.

The court dismissed the claim, noting that a sexual harassment claim must show a “tangible adverse employment action.” The plaintiff failed to present evidence such action against her, the judge wrote. She noted that “this case demonstrates the perils of an office romance.”

Though this case went against the plaintiff, it is possible to show that a so-called “consensual” workplace affair involved duress or threats against your career.

Source: Alatorre v. Mabus, 13-CV-1702 BAS DHB, 2015 WL 2180480, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2015)

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.