As discussed earlier, this case is less likely to be interpreted as sexual harassment because the gender of the victim and perpetrator are reversed. Additionally, it is not clear whether the behavior is unwanted.

However, this is a situation with elements of both a hostile working environment and quid pro quo. The subordinate begins to experience anxiety and the supervisor uses stronger (more threatening) language on the fourth occasion. The combination of these factors increases the likelihood that the courts might rule that this is a hostile work environment.

The supervisor also raises the stakes on the fourth occasion. Given that consequences are contingent upon "playing ball" this would be ruled as a quid pro quo case of sexual harassment.