After approximately 3 months of working there, [Judge Thomas] asked me to go out socially with him. I declined the invitation to go out socially with him, and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I thought that by saying "no" and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks he continued to ask me out on several occasions.Link to testimony of Professor Hill.
My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises, or large breasts individuals in various sex acts.
On several occasions Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about these subjects.
When Judge Thomas was made chair of the EEOC, I needed to face the question of whether to go with him. I was asked to do so and I did. The work, itself, was interesting, and at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures, which had so troubled me had ended.
For my first months at the EEOC, where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again.
One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were wording, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"
On other occasions he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex. At this point, Late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job.
How outrageous of the liberal media to report such things!!! This man was, at the time, a nominee to the United States Supreme Court. We're talking the Supremes people. The public had no right to know the nature of these allegations against the man. The fact that he may or may not have sexually harassed a subordinate while head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission surely has no bearing upon his qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. None! How could anyone but crazed liberals reason this to be news? I mean, this woman was a law professor in Oklahoma at the time. What kind of credence can you give to such a person? Her status was barely above that of a homeless drifter for Christ's sake. I'll give Anita one thing though: creativity. I'll never drink another Coke without looking for the pubic hair.