Analysis:
Was the behavior unwelcome?
Yes, she became uncomfortable with the messages.
Was it sexual in nature or based on gender?
The conduct may have been both sexual and based on gender.
... More
The conduct is based on gender if the sender sent her the messages because of her gender. It is sexual in nature if it pertains to sexuality. The sexual connotation became apparent with the last message.
Was it explicitly or implicitly a condition of, or basis for, employment or
academic decisions? (Was it a “quid pro quo” situation?)
Not a quid pro quo situation.
Did it have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work or academic
performance, or create a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment?
The sender may not have intended to offend, intimidate or create a hostile environment, but Rachel’s reaction suggests she was beginning to feel intimidated. The result was that the conduct interfered with her use of the computer lab.
Was the behavior severe or pervasive?
To be considered harassment the conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, such that a reasonable person would feel offended, intimidated or that the environment was hostile.
... More
The reasonable person’s standard considers the victim’s perspective as opposed to the stereotyped notions of acceptable behavior. One such message could be harassment if severe. Or, if less severe, conduct such as this that persists could be harassment. This single incident is not pervasive and it is not sufficiently severe to constitute harassment.
