Have either of the staff members with whom she allegedly had sexual relations said or suggested it was coercive or nonconsensual? Or is the principle that any sexual relations between a boss & an adult underling is inherently coercive, even if the employee doesn't feel coerced?
Absent any complaints or suggestions from an adult that sexual relations they chose to engage in with their boss was coercive or non-consensual, it seems rather paternalistic to override their own perceptions and impose on them a finding that they didn't really consent.
I'm not opining on Hill's case specifically because I (along with, it appears, everyone) don't know all relevant facts. I'm just asking what the principles & standards are that are being applied. It still seems a lot of this is based in puritanism & moralism about adult behavior.
