The word ‘harrassment’ was improper from the begining, as far as I’m concerned, because it does imply an ongoing or repeated action. However, the legal definition has nothing to do with how many times or how long the situation has gone on - once is enough - and most people understand that definition, even though it doesn’t seem to make sense.
That’s why changing it to ‘sexual misconduct’, which is a phrase not as familiar to people, makes it sound worse.
Thanks, nuconvert. After your post, I went online and tried to read the definitions and differences (I think I may have confused myself even more). From what I gathered, Sexual misconduct is defined as the wrongful, improper conduct that is motivated by the intentional purpose and/or with no regard to their action. It doesn’t always offend or affect others in the workplace. (it gave examples of a teacher having consensual sex with a student, or a boss having an affair with his secretary). Harassment related to a wide variety of behaviors. These behaviors are found to be threatening and disturbing. *** I have the feeling these definitions are over-simplified IMHO.