THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 12 | AUGUST 2025 battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). In theory, a victim of workplace sexual assault could sue their harasser (and even the employer under respondeat superior or negligence theories) for battery or IIED. Oklahoma recognizes IIED (also called the tort of outrage), but the threshold is notoriously high. The Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 requires “extreme and outrageous” conduct exceeding “all possible bounds of decency” – behavior “atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”8, 9 Many forms of harassment, especially nonphysical but highly coercive behavior, may not clearly meet this demanding standard as interpreted by the courts. Moreover, if the harm is deemed to have arisen out of employment, Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation exclusivity could potentially bar some tort claims against the employer.10 In short, neither Title VII nor traditional tort remedies have been a perfect fit for certain extreme workplace sexual misconduct scenarios – particularly those involving explicit coercion by a supervisor. AN OVERVIEW OF THE TVPA’S CIVIL REMEDY: SCOPE AND LIMITS Congress originally addressed sexual exploitation through criminal laws. The TVPA was enacted in 2000 primarily as a criminal statute targeting human trafficking and forced labor. The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations criminalized using “force, fraud, or coercion” to compel labor or commercial sex acts.11 Importantly, in 2003, Congress created a civil cause of action for victims of these crimes. Under 18 U.S.C. §1595(a), “An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator ... in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”12 In other words, victims of conduct that constitutes forced labor or sex trafficking under the TVPA can sue their perpetrators (and even certain third parties who benefited from the exploitation) for damages. Congress has also provided a generous statute of limitations: Victims have up to 10 years to file civil suits under the TVPA (or even longer in cases of minor victims).13 By contrast, Title VII claims must be acted upon within months, not years.14 ACCESSIBLE EXAMPLES: THE MCMAHON CASE, THE SEAN ‘DIDDY’ COMBS CASE AND THE EXPANDING REACH OF THE TVPA Recent litigation underscores the judiciary’s growing willingness to apply the TVPA in contexts of professional exploitation. In Grant v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a federal case filed in the District of Connecticut, the plaintiff, Janel Grant, alleged that WWE executive Vince McMahon and others violated the TVPA, 18 U.S.C. §§1591(a) and 1595(a), by coercing her into sexual acts under threat of professional harm and reputational ruin.15 Ms. Grant’s complaint describes a sustained pattern of manipulation, wherein Mr. McMahon allegedly used his authority within WWE to initiate a sexual relationship with Ms. Grant, compelling her through psychological coercion and economic dependence. She was allegedly offered employment and career advancement in exchange for sex and later pressured to sign a nondisclosure agreement under circumstances she contends were coercive. The allegations include threats to her career, implicit and explicit, and describe how noncompliance resulted in retaliatory actions and isolation within the workplace.16 Although the court has not yet ruled on the merits, the case illustrates key principles: that a “commercial sex act” under the TVPA includes any sex act exchanged for “anything of value,” such as employment, career access or financial security and that “coercion” encompasses psychological manipulation, threats of serious harm and abuse of legal or economic power, as broadly defined under §1591(e)(2). Grant reinforces the core argument that TVPA protections can and do extend beyond conventional trafficking contexts and can encompass exploitative workplace dynamics where power imbalances are used to override individual autonomy. For practitioners, Grant demonstrates how courts are increasingly attuned to the realities of modern workplace exploitation. When an executive uses professional leverage, implicit threats or reputational control to compel sexual conduct, such actions may satisfy the statutory requirements for sex trafficking under federal law. In the news today, we’ve seen the litigation against Sean “Diddy” Combs provide a compelling realworld example of how the TVPA can be deployed to address coercive sexual exploitation in ostensibly professional or entertainment- related settings. Mr. Combs is Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==