the ck example at least could have been workplace harassment, but let's look at what would have been harassment, and what actually happened (as far as i've read).

suppose your boss calls you up and asks if he can jerk off when you're on the phone. you say no. then, you get fired or demoted the next day. ok - this is a scenario that would have been wrong, and the correct thing to do is sue.

and, suppose your boss calls you over and over again and asks to jerk off when you're on the phone, even though you've said no. well, that's certainly harassment, even if you get promoted the next day.

but, if you say no and nothing happens - or you maybe even get promoted - then i don't think there's anything wrong with that. that would neither be morally wrong, nor would it be against the law, in my estimation. a very strict workplace may interpret it as a problem, but it would probably be the boss that gets to sue for wrongful termination, in such a scenario. if i were the judge, i would consider that wrongful dismissal.

further, if the boss asks and you say yes then that's not anything more or less than a consensual encounter. so, this idea that you were forced into it by some kind of imagined system of hierarchy or something is not an argument for anything except schizophrenia. the hierarchy is an abstraction, useful for certain arguments on the left, but it is not a concrete thing that actually exists, and it cannot be referenced as an actual entity in a legal context. that is an argument from conspiracy; it's like blaming aliens, or the illuminati. perhaps the consent was attached to an assumption of favouritism, but insofar as that is true, it's a type of prostitution, and the wrongdoing would fall upon the person consenting under questionable premises. and, in situations where people are promoted in exchange for sexual favours - which i believe was the case in the weinstein fiasco - the correct charges are related to solicitation, because that's what is actually happening.

but, to have a consensual encounter and then decide afterwards that it didn't have the intended outcome is not a coherent accusation of harassment under any existing concept of the law. and, it follows that i don't actually think that louis ck is guilty of anything at all - except, perhaps, behaving in poor taste.