It’s Much More Than “Not Touching;” Why Edwards’ Conduct Is Textbook Sexual Harassment

When news broke that Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) dropped his re-election bid following a rare (yet completely logical in most workplaces) bipartisan House Ethics Committee recommendation for censure, the headlines and Edwards’ defense counsel statements zeroed in a tired / outdated workplace sexual harassment trope: No sexual assault occurred. Edwards’ legal defense went so far as to argue that the findings “exonerate” him from sexual misconduct because there were no explicit propositions or physical sexual contact. Yikes. When was the last time his counsel participated in workplace no-harassment training?

The patterns documented in the Edwards case—commenting on female staffers’ clothing and bodies, lavishing them with thousands of dollars in gifts, showering them with notes of “effusive affection,” and isolating them with mandatory “intimate dinners”—aren’t just “unprofessional.” Under modern workplace conduct and compliance standards, they are textbook sexual harassment.

As a professional who has both prevented and remediated workplace sexual harassment issues for decades, here’s the bottom line: “No sexual assault” is not an exoneration. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes workplace sexual harassment. It also raises questions about what type of no-workplace-harassment training Edwards received, if at all.  

Sexual assault is merely the most extreme end of a broad spectrum of noncompliant behavior. You do not need physical contact, explicit propositions, or sexual assault to create a toxic, illegal, and hostile work environment in NYS, per the Spectrum of Sexual Harassment Behaviors, below.

And don’t get me started on Intent vs. Impact (e.g., “it wasn’t my intention to harass”)– not only is it a compliance standard, it’s also a simple exercise in personal accountability. We can’t read each other’s minds – no one cares about your intention. It’s only the impact that we perceive with our physical senses that matters as it relates to professional and personal accountability in the workplace.

When a 65-year-old Congressman uses his power to subject 19- and 20-something female subordinates to recurring romantic gestures, personal commentary, and private travel, it isn’t a petty slight. It is an intentional, power-driven violation of workplace sexual harassment boundaries that systematically destroys psychological safety, in business and at work.