Was "hottest in the room" Tulsi Gabbard a victim of sexual harassment by the Federal Government?

On July 22, 2025, and while speaking to Republican lawmakers at the White House, Trump said about Tulsi Gabbard, “She’s like, hotter than everybody. She’s the hottest one in the room right now.” and “Speaker, she’s hotter than you right now, speaker. She’s the hottest person in the room right now, speaker,” Is that sexual harassment under Title VII? 

To constitute sexual harassment under federal law, under the hostile work environment theory, the sexual harassment must be severe and pervasive. That standard is lowered in states though, like New York under its New York State Human Rights Law where the standard is inferior terms and conditions that rise above petty slights and trivial inconveniences. However, under any analysis, it's all about the context and the culmination of other acts that instruct as to whether a victim has suffered from a hostile work environment based on sex. 

Here, Tulis has no case and it is impossible to find sexual harassment because Trump made the context of his statement expressly known where he wasn't using the term "hot" with respect to looks, but instead, with respect to his perception that she is killing it at her job. We know this because his next statement was “[Gabbard] found out that Barack Hussein Obama led a group of people and they cheated in the elections and they cheated without question.” 

The takeaway is you can't have a got yah moment without context. It's not about what was said standing alone. It's about what was sent, when it was said, why it was said, where it was said, who said it to whom, and which witnesses can corroborate the purported victim's tail of events because sexual harassment needs to be both subjectively and objectively harassment to constitute actionable discrimination. 

Can a CEO Have an Affair with HR Without It Constituting Sexual Harassment at Work?

We are asking for Andy Byron and the entire Astronomer team  after the Coldplay Kiss Cam fiasco.

The truth is that a consensual sexual relationship between a supervisor and an employee does not, in itself, constitute actionable sexual harassment. The reason is simple: Actionable sexual harassment under Title VII requires that the sexual acts at issue be unwelcome by the other participant - Here, Kristin Cabot sure seemed to welcome the sexual acts and she was the HR Head, so she would be hard pressed to act like she did not know her rights to say no. 

However, Andy and Astronomer, we aren't done there - here is where you have problems. The real problems for Astronomer stem from how this relationship between Byron and Cabot, and any related conduct, affects other employees who are not directly involved in the consensual relationship as follows:

1. Adverse employment action for female employees who did NOT submit to sexual advances can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "[R]efusing to accede to sexual advances is an activity protected under Title VII." Rashid v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 96 CIV. 1833 (AGS), 1998 WL 689931, at *2 (SDNY Oct. 2, 1998)
2. "Sexual harassment in the context of employment can form the basis for a Title VII claim. In the typical case, the female plaintiff claims that her male supervisor requested sexual favors from her and conditioned some job benefit, for example a promotion, on her assent. Such a claim is cognizable under Title VII." Toscano v Nimmo, 570 F. Supp. 1197, 1199 (1983)
3. "[S]he suffered what amounted to a 'reassignment with significantly different responsibilities' under Ellerth. She testified at trial that after she refused Flick's sexual advances, he substantially reduced her job responsibilities." Roberts v County of Cook, 01 C 9373, 2004 WL 1088230, at *2 (ND Ill May 12, 2004)
2. Hostile environment of sexual harassment for non-direct victims can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "Evidence of the general work atmosphere, involving employees other than the plaintiff, is relevant to the issue of whether there existed an atmosphere of hostile work environment which violated Title VII. This is so because “[e]ven a woman who was never herself the object of harassment might have a Title VII claim if she were forced to work in an atmosphere in which such harassment was pervasive.”" Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)
2. "Past California decisions have established that the prohibition against sexual harassment includes protection from a broad range of conduct, ranging from expressly or impliedly conditioning employment benefits on submission to or tolerance of unwelcome sexual advances, to the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex. Such a hostile environment may be created even if the plaintiff never is subjected to sexual advances." Miller v Dept of Corr., 36 Cal. 4th 446, 461 (2005)
3.  “[A]n employee may establish an actionable claim of sexual harassment under the FEHA by demonstrating that widespread sexual favoritism was severe or pervasive enough to alter his or her working conditions and create a hostile work environment." - Miller v Dept of Corr., 36 Cal. 4th 446, 461 (2005) (note that NYS Courts only require inferior rising above petty slights and trivial inconveniences rather than severe or pervasive)
3. Preferential treatment for female employees who submitted to sexual advances (like Kristin Cabot) can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination by creating a hostile environment. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "[A] plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of sex discrimination by offering proof that a woman who was promoted to a job in the plaintiff's stead was having a sexual relationship with a person partially responsible for the hiring decision." Drinkwater v Union Carbide Corp., 904 F2d 853, 860 (3d Cir 1990)
2. "Additionally, Title VII is also violated when an employer affords preferential treatment to female employees who submit to sexual advances or other conduct of a sexual nature and such conduct is a matter of common knowledge." Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)
3. "In those cases in which Title VII was extended to allow recovery based upon a supervisor's voluntary sexual relationship with a subordinate, the claims usually were premised upon the paramour receiving some form of preferential treatment over the claimant. (in this case, no Title VII because plaintiff alleged she was fired because she knew of the affair, a motivation that did not rely on her gender)" Ellert v Univ. of Texas, 52 F.3d 543, 546 (1995)
4. "[W]here a supervisor's preference for his or her paramour is transformed from simple favoritism to the concrete bestowal of tangible, economically valuable employment benefits denied other employees, such conduct can constitute prohibited discrimination." Perron v Sec'y Dep't of Health and Human Services, 2008 WL 5101577 at *5 (2008)
5. "Plaintiff opposes summary judgment in this regard on grounds that she in fact suffered three such adverse actions: 1) her failure to receive an annual special award; 2) her supervisor's selection of his paramour, Pamela Kite, for the desirable Katrina Detail; and 3) James Greer's failure to nominate her for a QSI. Plaintiff further points to circumstances surrounding all three of these actions as evincing Greer's discriminatory intent." Forrest v Brinker Int’l Payroll Co., LP, 511 F.3d 225, 229 (1st Cir. 2007)
6. "… plaintiff, without any doubt, was forced to work in an environment in which the WRO managers by their conduct harassed her and other WRO female employees, by bestowing preferential treatment upon those who submitted to their sexual advances. This preferential treatment undermined plaintiff's motivation and work performance and deprived plaintiff, and other WRO female employees, of promotions and job opportunities. The record is clear that plaintiff and other women working at the WRO found the sexual conduct and its accompanying manifestations which WRO managers engaged in over a protracted period of time to be offensive. The record also establishes that plaintiff and other women were for obvious reasons reluctant to voice their displeasure and, when they did, they were treated with a hostile response by WRO's management team." Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)

Therefore, the "principle that emerges from the above cases is that absent claims of coercion or widespread sexual favoritism, where an employee engages in consensual sexual conduct with a supervisor and an employment decision is based on this conduct, Title VII is not implicated because any benefits of the relationship are due to the sexual conduct, rather than the gender, of the employee." Tenge v Phillips Modern Ag Co., 446 F3d 903, 909 (8th Cir 2006)

But here’s where the Coldplay Kiss Cam scandal takes a sharper turn. Andy’s wife, Megan Kerrigan, could pursue a divorce and depending on the terms of their prenup or postnup (if one exists), she might need to lean into the workplace discrimination angle to strengthen her financial claims. In doing so, she risks simultaneously substantiating a hostile work environment claim for other Astronomer employees, potentially encouraging those who’ve stayed silent to come forward. As Astronomer’s owner, Megan is caught in a bind - staying quiet protects the company by limiting further exposure to discrimination and retaliation claims, but the scorned spouse in her might not be willing to keep the peace.

If you have been involved in this situation at work and you want to know if you have a discrimination claim, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Did this sexual relationship between a supervisor and a co-worker create a workplace atmosphere where sexual harassment was either pervasive or, in New York, rose above petty slights and trivial inconveniences?
2. Was there a general workplace atmosphere where multiple employees experienced a hostile environment and was the situation widely discussed among staff? The more employees consistently affected, the stronger the potential case.
3. Was there favoritism shown toward employees who submitted to sexual advances from leadership or management and was that favoritism common knowledge? Did it result in lost promotions, missed job opportunities, or a decline in overall morale? 
4. Most importantly, ask yourself this - Were you ever propositioned by a supervisor and if you refused, were you denied any work benefits, opportunities, or advancement as a result?

If you're navigating a workplace relationship scandal or believe favoritism or harassment is impacting your career, contact Lieb at Law. Our employment law team is ready to evaluate whether your rights under Title VII or the NYS Human Rights Law have been violated. 

Visit https://www.liebatlaw.com or call us today to schedule a confidential consultation.

*Attorney Advertising

New Bill Would Require Written Buyer Broker Agreements in NY

A new bill introduced by Assemblymember Cruz, Bill A08910, proposes significant changes to New York’s real estate brokerage law. If enacted, the bill would add Section 442-m to the Real Property Law and modify Section 443, the existing agency disclosure statute, to require written Buyer Broker Agreements (BBAs) that include clear and conspicuous disclosures about compensation.

Key Requirements Under the Bill

Under the Bill, a Buyer's Broker Agreement (BBA) must contain the following:

(a) Clearly and conspicuously contain the following disclosure: "Compensation is not set by law and is fully negotiable."

(b) The name, address and contact information for all parties to the agreement;

(c) The length of the agreement including the length of any condition under which the real estate broker may still have a claim for compensation after the agreement expires;

(d) The type of agency relationship between the buyer and the real estate broker; and

(e) The terms of compensation, including:

(i) The amount the buyer agrees to compensate the real estate broker;

(ii) How the amount of compensation will be determined;

(iii) When compensation is earned by the real estate broker;

(iv) When compensation is due to the real estate broker;

(v) The consent of the buyer if the real estate broker will share any compensation with another broker;

(vi) The consent of the buyer if the broker will be requesting any compensation from another party; and

(vii) The consent of the buyer if the broker will be compensated by more than one party.

Potential Legal Conflict: Statute of Frauds

Although transparency is a worthy goal, this bill raises legal questions. Notably, it may conflict with the Statute of Frauds under GOL § 5-701(a)(10), which exempts licensed real estate brokers and salespersons from the written contract requirement. Additionally, duplicating agency disclosures, first in the statutory disclosure form and again in the BBA - could be viewed as superfluous and if they conflict, real issues could emerge.

Why Brokers Should Pay Attention

While this bill hasn't advanced in the legislature and is not law yet, it's a clear signal of where things may be headed in response to commission related scrutiny across the industry. Smart brokers can use this bill as a template to proactively strengthen their buyer's brokerage agreements, improve transparency, and minimize legal risk.

📞 Need Help Drafting or Reviewing Your Buyer Broker Agreement?

The proposed legislation may not be law yet - but smart brokers get ahead of compliance.
Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to review your current agreements or create custom templates that protect your commissions and meet evolving legal standards.

👉 Learn More.

*Attorney Advertising

Florida's CHOICE Act - Non-Competes and Garden Leave - Employers Celebrate

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida's CHOICE Act causes a four-year non-compete agreement to be presumptively enforceable.

Does that mean that all employers are changing their choice of law provisions to take advantage of Florida's non-compete rights?

Nope - the CHOICE Act requires an employer to have a principal place of business in a Florida County for the law's effectiveness. In fact, the law ties qualification to the CHOICE Act to an employee having an annual salary greater than twice the average wage of the Florida county where the employer's principal place of business is located. So, no dice.

However, is this a trend? Regardless, employees - you don't have to sign such non-competes and the law makes that clear by giving you a 7-day review period before its binding with notice of your right to have an attorney, in writing. 

The AI Audit That Wasn’t: How Grok Became a Legal Liability

Elon Musk’s AI company Grok, was caught surfacing antisemitic and racist responses on X (formerly Twitter).

When AI systems are deployed without content filters, human review, or ethical auditing, they can do more than make mistakes in their output. They can create liability under anti-discrimination laws.

Why AI Needs Oversight

Generative AI tools trained on the open web can replicate bias and hate unless carefully monitored. That is why Andrew Lieb, Managing Attorney at Lieb at Law, published the 10-Step Bias Elimination Audit in the New York Law Journal. It provides a compliance roadmap for companies deploying AI tools.

• Audit datasets for bias and disparate impact
• Implement real-time monitoring of outputs
• Involve multidisciplinary teams in reviews
• Document all mitigation efforts for accountability

AI and Legal Risk

AI discrimination is not theoretical. It is actionable under federal and state laws, including Title VII, the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and New York Executive Law. There are even local laws such as the New York City Human Rights Law that create claims. If an algorithm makes a discriminatory decision, the company using it can be sued for discrimination where they can owe back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees / expert fees while also being ordered to change their practices, train on anti-discrimination, and more.

At Lieb at Law, we provide both defense and prevention. Our team litigates AI-related claims and performs compliance audits to help businesses avoid them.

Explore Our AI Compliance and Litigation Services

Lieb at Law helps companies navigate the legal risks of artificial intelligence and machine learning. We defend discrimination claims, perform algorithmic audits, and deliver CLE training on AI legal exposure.

Learn More

Attorney Advertising: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Amazon Flex Drivers: You Might Be Owed More Than You Think

Amazon’s “Flex” program promises freedom - work when you want, earn on your terms. But if you’ve ever driven for Flex, you probably know that the reality doesn’t match the marketing.

According to recent reports, Flex drivers are locked out of the app after working certain hours, penalized for late deliveries even when delays aren't their fault, and subjected to rigid performance metrics. The system tells you when and how to work. That’s not independence. This is control and control is the name of the game when it comes to the distinction between employment status and independent contractor status - think misclassification.

So, that kind of control that Amazon apparently has comes with legal consequences.

Here’s What That Means Legally

If Amazon is telling you when to work, how to perform, and punishing you for noncompliance, they may have misclassified you as an independent contractor when you should be treated as an employee, which gives you access to recover damages in the form of: 

• Unpaid wages and overtime plus liquidated damages and attorneys' fees

• Reimbursement for expenses (like gas and vehicle wear-and-tear)

• Other employee protections under wage and labor laws (employer contributions to health insurance, retirement, workers' compensation premiums, paid time off, etc.) 

Over 15,000 Flex drivers have already filed arbitration claims and reporting indicates that Amazon has lost most of them.

Why You Are Forced into Arbitration
Companies like Amazon often make workers agree to arbitration so they can't sue in open court or join class actions. It’s designed to keep things quiet and discourage claims. But it’s backfiring because thousands of drivers are taking action, one case at a time. And they’re winning.

Know Your Rights - Especially in New York
In New York, the State's Labor Law offers enhanced protections over the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for misclassifications, including a 6 year statute of limitations rather than a 2 year. Moreover, if you can't prove a misclassification, New York gives freelancers (independent contractors) their own set of labor protections in the Freelance Isn’t Free Act (FIFA). Under FIFA, you have the right to a written contract with specific protective terms, timely payment, and protection from retaliation. If Amazon (or any company) fails to pay you properly or takes advantage of your contractor status, you can pursue legal action, depending on the facts.

Bottom Line
If you’ve worked for Amazon Flex or any gig platform and felt more like an employee than a business owner, you may have a case. The law protects workers from companies that try to cut corners by calling employees “independent contractors.”
You have rights. And at Lieb at Law, we’re here to help you enforce them.