The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2025

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 non compliance resulted in retaliatory actions and isolation within the workplace. 16 Although the court has not yet ruled on the merits, the case illus trates key principles: that a “com mercial sex act” under the TVPA includes any sex act exchanged for “anything of value,” such as employment, career access or financial security and that “coer cion” encompasses psychological manipulation, threats of serious harm and abuse of legal or eco nomic power, as broadly defined under §1591(e)(2). Grant reinforces the core argu ment that TVPA protections can and do extend beyond conven tional trafficking contexts and can encompass exploitative workplace dynamics where power imbalances are used to override individual autonomy. For practitioners, Grant demon strates how courts are increasingly attuned to the realities of modern workplace exploitation. When an executive uses professional leverage, implicit threats or repu tational 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 real world example of how the TVPA can be deployed to address coercive sexual exploitation in ostensibly professional or entertainment- related settings. Mr. Combs is

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 per petrators (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 will ingness to apply the TVPA in contexts of professional exploita tion. 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 manipu lation, wherein Mr. McMahon allegedly used his authority within WWE to initiate a sexual relation ship with Ms. Grant, compelling her through psychological coercion and economic dependence. She was

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 out rageous” conduct exceeding “all possible bounds of decency” – behavior “atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized commu nity.” 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’ compensa tion 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 miscon duct scenarios – particularly those involving explicit coercion by a supervisor. Congress originally addressed sexual exploitation through crim inal laws. The TVPA was enacted in 2000 primarily as a criminal statute targeting human traffick ing and forced labor. The TVPA and its subsequent reauthoriza tions 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 AN OVERVIEW OF THE TVPA’S CIVIL REMEDY: SCOPE AND LIMITS

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.

12 | AUGUST 2025

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL