One question that frequently comes up is what constitutes "sex harassment." That has been a very important question in the proceedings against a federal judge. Judge Sam Kent was sent to jail for 33 months for abusing his position and harassing female subordinates. Certainly, his actions, groping females, was clearly sex harassment. But, generally, any unwanted attention based on gender constitutes sex harassment.
But, look at that statement closely. The actions must be known to the victim. If not know, there is no way to know whether it is unwanted. The stereotypical grafitti on the wall of the men’s room only becomes an issues when it becomes known to the victim. And, the actions must be based on gender. If the grafitti concerns both men and women, then it is probably not based on gender.
Earlier, Judge Kent tried to claim the touching was consensual. There are many ways to show consent or non-consent. It helps if a victim complains about the problem to someone else at about the time of the unwanted attention. But, the best way to show lack of consent is simply for the victim to file a written complaint about the actions. Many victims do not complain early on, simply out of a desire to "fit in" or try to get along. That is part of what makes sex harassment cases problematical. If employment cases were easy, then the PI lawyers who advertise on TV would be doing them….