Unwelcome romantic or sexual advances could create a hostile work environment if the behavior unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance or if the behavior negatively affects an employee's psychological well being because the environment is intimidating, hostile or offensive.

The second type of harassment is more blatant. Here job benefits, continuation in the job or other employment decisions are based on the satisfaction of sexual demands. Quid pro quo harassment is generally done by someone in authority, a supervisor or manager. If the employee agrees to the act, the coerced consent may not relieve the employer of liability. The harassment can be implied--a discussion of workplace issues followed by an improper request was held to be quid pro quo harassment. The harassment need not come before the request. An employee spurned a request and was later discharged for calling in sick; this was held to be harassment. No negative job consequence, such as being demoted or fired, is required for the employee to bring an action--simply the act of being asked and having refused is sufficient.

In either case, the employer is ultimately liable for what happens on the job.

The federal statute applies to employers with 15 or more employees; state law may differ.

This Standard goes one step beyond the law, however, and prohibits sexual activity between these people even if everyone involved consents to the acts. The Board apparently felt the power disparities in these relationships (teacher/student, employer/employee) made any consent so ambiguous that they opted out of the whole situation, protecting the reputation of therapist and industry.

Does the prohibition last after the status ends? Clearly, as regards to clients, NCBTMB Standards of Practice VI (a) governs and the status (of being a client) must end and the couple must wait six months. The Standards do not mention a waiting period for the other relationships. It is therefore possible that a student who had graduated could enter into sexual activity with a former teacher who is also a therapist. The student could not also be a client or the more restrictive waiting period would apply.