"If someone you worked with opened up to you and told you they’d been a victim of sexual abuse, would that create a feeling of intimacy?"

I want to point out that not all feelings of intimacy are the same. The feeling of intimacy with a parent figure is not romantic... In fact, that the parent figure tries to turn it into romantic when you have just told him that you have been abused it could be felt as a betrayal. A big one. Because you are vulnerable and the other people is trying to use that against you.

"If afterward, you offered to begin a relationship, would you be guilty of sexual harassment?"

If you are the boss and in a position of power, there is a "threat not spoken" there. It might not be your intention, but cases of women rejecting their bosses and being fired afterwards are common enough (Linda just told you one) that even if you don't say anything, women would think about it. Sure, it can't be proved in a trial. But we know it anyway. So when you "make a pass", she is hearing: "Do you want to be in a relationship with me or do you want me to fire you?". And again, you can insist that you would never, ever fire a woman for rejecting you. But so would claim the men who have fired a woman for rejecting them. They would say that "there was another reason like incompetence" and the woman still know it was because of that. Since woman don't know if you are honest or not when you say they can say no without consequences, the threat remains.

The threat is always there, whether it is openly spoken or not. Do you understand it now?

"As for the claimant being transferred, as you say, it’s the right procedure."

Being transfered is paying a price for rejecting him. It is better than being fired, but means her career being derailed for rejecting him. And chances are that she asked for the transfer because she was already being punished with worse assignments and being sidelined on the job after rejecting him. That is how it works.

So you are right, it doesn't prove abuse in court, but let's face it, for the people who has experience it there are huge red flags.

You want to be "logical", then start reading things in context. In the same way that mafia didn't need to specify that not paying for protection meant they would destroy your business, powerful men doesn't need to spell out threats and even when they don't or when they claim they would never, ever hurt you, it sound like a mafia men claiming they would never ever beat the crap out of you if you refuse to pay. They sound as hypocrites and so do powerful men who "make passes" on the women of their staff.

The equivalent of what you are saying is that until they found a horse head on their bed there was no intimidation and no threats. But they don't need that, a "friendly chat" is more than enough to get the message across.

What you consider "unimportant" like kisses or "just one touch" happened in an office where the woman who rejected him ended being transferred (their careers being derailed), sidelined or punished in other subtle ways that would be difficult to prove in court but that the woman there would know without a doubt was because of the rejection. When you look at the full picture there is a pattern. Coumo was asking for protection in a "friendly way" because the message was already clear without the need for a horse head. Context is everything.

Is this answer understable enough?