For claims of sexual harassment, also a claim under the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII, there are two types,quid pro quo(this for that) harassment, and hostile work environment (which can also be predicated on all protected classes, not just sex).Quid pro quoharassment occurs when there are either promises, actions, or threats regarding an exchange of some sexual endeavor (dating, sex, refraining from dating someone) in exchange for positive or negative work consequences. A hostile environment occurs when the harassment is so severe that it "alters the conditions of employment." There is a "nexus" between severe and pervasive. The more severe it is, the less pervasive it needs to be. For example, a rape by a coworker would be severe enough, it does not need to be pervasive. Telling a sexist joke in front of co-workers is probably not severe enough by itself, but if it occurs repeatedly over a long period of time, then the nexus between severity and pervasiveness is met.

The below case is the first mention of sexual harassment by the Supreme Court. Under the standards of hostile work environment inMeritor Savings Bank, pick an allegation against an individual affiliated with the #metoo movement, such as Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, or even Donald Trump, and determine whether their alleged behavior and which behavior meets the nexus of severity and pervasiveness.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14616838878214701501&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr