Yes, you're right. The suit apparently alleges that the relationship itself was not consensual. However, that almost necessarily means that acts within that relationship, if they were seen as "necessary to keep the relationship going", would be non-consensual.

I don't mean rape (or else I think Keith's response would have a different approach). How Keith describes it, it could be anything relationship-related, just as sexual harassment does not necessarily involve sex.

Again, in any sexual facet not pertaining to rape, I find this news saddening.

If I were to enter into a relationship with you, and I said that the only way I would continue the relationship is if you kept it under wraps, then is that really qualification as sexual harassment?

The fact that we provide legal representation for people who have the choice to discontinue a relationship is beyond me.

It could very well be the opposite, the case is probably alleging that in order to get / keep the job the accuser had to continue a sexual relationship.

I don't think your example is really what's allegedly happening here. Isn't it implied that the relationship was required in order for the accuser to keep their job?

Actually, I think in many corporate environments, it's OK for pre-existing relationships to continue if both partners end up having jobs at the company...provided they let HR know in advance. I think that this pertains also to relationships that occur during the employment time...because sometimes love just happens.

But Keith, according to his note, did not let Square know. And as much as you want to say "what, can't someone's love life be their own business?"...well, not when such an engagement presents legal liabilities and possible conflicts of interests. Even if Keith did nothing wrong toward the accuser, the company can understandably be upset that he did not notify them of the relationship...because stuff like this happens...