Whilst there is despicable behavior on behalf of the manager, I feel it's not as clear-cut as that.
She worked there as an intern. She had not applied for a job.
He told her he'd make sure she'd GET an offer if she slept with him, not that she would have to do so to get a job.
She then did so, and hid it from her (ex partner). She also agreed that "nothing improper" happened (which is problematic for numerous reasons, and not without the threat of authority).
She worked there as an intern. She had not applied for a job. He told her he'd make sure she'd GET an offer if she slept with him, not that she would have to do so to get a job.
You're splitting hairs. From the point of view of the law, it was a quid-pro-quo specifying preferential consideration in matters of employment (or promotion) in exchange for sex. That's what matters.
She then did so, and hid it from her (ex partner).
Completely irrelevant to the sexual harassment issue.
She also agreed that "nothing improper" happened (which is problematic for numerous reasons, and not without the threat of authority).
She signed a statement, under duress (and implicit threat of termination) about the subjective import of what happened. Which in no way changes or diminishes the physical reality of actually did happen. Which for Amazon, appears to be quite damning on its own merits. Quite damning, indeed.
She worked there as an intern. She had not applied for a job.
He told her he'd make sure she'd GET an offer if she slept with him, not that she would have to do so to get a job.
She then did so, and hid it from her (ex partner). She also agreed that "nothing improper" happened (which is problematic for numerous reasons, and not without the threat of authority).