When people think of sexual harassment, they typically envision sexual misconduct between different genders or between same genders.

This mindset creates a misconception about sexual harassment.

Actionable sexual harassment does not necessarily require that there be a sexual desire to be actionable.

The law only requires a showing that the conduct was because of the person’s gender. In other words, the person would not likely engage in this conduct toward a different gender.

About a decade ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a case brought against the Cheesecake Factory where six male employees claimed they were subjected to repeated sexual harassment by other male kitchen staffers while working at the restaurant.

The men claimed they were subjected to sexually abusive behavior, to include co-workers touching their genitals, making sexually charged remarks, grinding their genitals against them and forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape, according to an EEOC press release. The case alleged that managers witnessed victims being dragged “kicking and screaming into the refrigerator,” according to the EEOC.

The case alleged that the perpetrators engaged in the behaviors not because of sexual desire, but to humiliate and embarrass the other men. This, the EEOC said, constituted sexual harassment because the men directed their sexual misconduct toward other men.

These events occurred more than 10 years ago. Ideally, this type of behavior has been eliminated from today’s workplace.

Fast-forward to 2018 when a female employee claims she was sexually harassed and assaulted, among other claims, by her female boss, the owner and pharmacist at a pharmacy in Illinois.

The employee claims that she and others were compelled to line up and kiss the female owner on the mouth as a prerequisite to receive their paychecks; receive spankings from the owner as a form of discipline and sexual gratification; and observe displays of nudity by the owner, among other transgressions.

The employee claims that after working for the pharmacy for more than a decade, she developed high blood pressure, severe anxiety and depression from the owner’s conduct. She says she was terminated as a result of her medical inability to work.

The owner denies the allegations, calling them bogus and said the charges are being driven by a disgruntled employee.

The U.S. District Court in Illinois has refused to dismiss the majority of the charges, including claims of unlawful sexual harassment, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Over the years, I have been involved in similar cases, where a woman in power engages in strange, abusive and controlling behaviors, crosses boundaries and is too familiar with employees.

Victims in these situations typically feel powerless because they might think same-sex harassment is not actionable.

Frequently, perpetrators of this misconduct will respond that they didn’t mean to harass the person and thought it was welcome and/or they were trying to be lighthearted.

Intent to “harass” is not the test. Those in power need to avoid becoming too emotionally attached to employees and need to maintain a professional and respectful workplace at all times.

Whether sexual misconduct is between men or women or opposite genders, it cannot be tolerated.