A recent dispute between musicians that found its way to the intermediate federal appellate court that oversees New York, Connecticut, and Vermont – called the Second Circuit Court of Appeals – has highlighted how quickly allegations of sexual harassment can escalate into public, legal battles. This case raises important lessons for small businesses and HR professionals about how to prevent and be on the lookout for inappropriate relationships, as well as the best way to provide a safe space for employees to make complaints.
Coleman v. Grand’s Facts
Coleman v. Grand, a case decided on November 3, 2025, involves a dispute between a prominent jazz saxophonist, Steven Douglas Coleman, and his former pupil Maria Kim Grand. After feeling she had been victimized by Mr. Coleman, Ms. Grand circulated a letter detailing her relationship with Mr. Coleman and the harassment she endured at his hands. Ms. Grand alleged that Mr. Coleman had engaged in what’s known as quid pro quo sexual harassment. That’s typically when a superior requires sexual favors in exchange workplace benefits. Here, Ms. Grand alleged that Mr. Coleman had offered his knowledge and provided various professional opportunities to her in exchange for sexual favors. Ms. Grand described her admittedly consensual relationship with Mr. Coleman in detail and further acknowledged that a part of her felt manipulative towards Mr. Coleman because she fell in love with him and craved his attention, not wanting it to stop.
When he got wind that she’d circulated her allegations publicly, though, Mr. Coleman filed a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Grand. He claimed it was defamatory for her to write to others and say that he had sexually harassed her.
Coleman v. Grand’s Legal Opinion
Based on all these circumstances, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ms. Grand’s statements were non-actionable opinions based on facts that had been fully disclosed in the letter. The court explained that, when read as a whole, the letter made clear that the accusations reflected Ms. Grand’s personal feelings about the relationship. Therefore, the court concluded, Grand’s letter didn’t expose Mr. Coleman to public hatred or contempt, and his defamation claim failed.
The court went on to say that the letter simply showed whether Grand thought Mr. Coleman was a good or bad partner. Because all relevant facts were presented, the court explained, readers could decide for themselves whether Mr. Coleman’s conduct amounted to sexual harassment.
Lessons for New York Employers
While this case focuses on defamation, there are some key lessons that can be learned that help employers stay mindful of potential harassment.
Practice Pointer #1: The most important takeaway is that employers need to stay alert if they suspect any sexual or romantic relationships between employees or between management and employees. Don’t cover your eyes and ears! Instead, be attentive about coworkers engaging in out-of-work relationships, even if they appear to be consensual.
As seen in Coleman v. Grand, even consensual relationships may lead to issues down the road if there’s a power imbalance. While it’s not necessarily an employer’s job to dictate its employees’ personal lives or overstep boundaries, be aware of the signs. Moreover, consider in advance whether a no-fraternization policy makes sense in your workplace.
In Coleman v. Grande, for example, the two parties had a quid pro quo relationship, with the senior and likely more powerful individual offering knowledge and opportunities for sexual favors. This type of relationship isn’t always apparent, but don’t wear blinders if something seems concerning.
Practice Pointer #2: The second important takeaway is to provide a system where employees can air their complaints, concerns, or grievances in a confidential way where the victim feels heard. While a workplace mechanism like this might not have prevented Ms. Grand’s public letter detailing her relationship with Mr. Coleman, a system for complaints allows people to express themselves and alert the employer of any possible or potential misconduct. Welcoming disclosures – while perhaps uncomfortable – is a powerful first step to solving workplace dilemmas so that they don’t become public. While employees always have the right to make a public complaint with the Division of Human Rights or file a charge with the EEOC, having a robust internal system helps the less-powerful employee feel heard. And that’s important.
Other Practice Pointers for Employers:
- Consider and adopt, if appropriate, a non-fraternization policy. These are sometimes called workplace romance policies.
- Then implement the policy. That means you need to educate all workers – including management – about its existence and what it means.
- When an employee reports a workplace romance, hear him out. Don’t brush it off. And conduct an investigation if appropriate.
- Keep detailed documentation. That may include notes, statements, photos and other images, as well as other records. Sexual harassment claims are highly fact-dependent, meaning that the more documentation you have, the better.
The Bottom Line
Even though Coleman v. Grand arose outside a traditional workplace, it serves as a reminder that allegations of misconduct, whether public or still private and within the confines of the business, can have serious reputational consequences. Indeed, often coworkers have far more information than management – after all, whether we like it or not, coworkers gossip.
By setting clear boundaries, documenting concerns, and providing safe reporting channels, small businesses can better protect their employees and themselves.
If you have any questions, please reach out at 716.839.9700 or email us at info@coppolalegal.com. We’re here to help.
