Is my supervisor Sharon talk and the employee albert is fucking

1. What the supplied reporting actually covers

The documents supplied address workplace sexual relationships and institutional responses in general—how courts and regulators evaluate welcomeness and the totality of circumstances under sexual‑harassment law ^[3], how boards should respond when senior leaders face misconduct claims ^[4], and how institutions have adopted policies to manage supervisor‑subordinate intimate relationships after specific scandals ^{[5] [6]}; none of the pieces make an assertion about a supervisor named Sharon and an employee named Albert specifically in the materials provided ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Why verification is not possible from these sources

These sources are explanatory, precedent‑driven, or about other named cases: legal guidance on when consensual relationships can still be harassment ^[3], corporate governance norms for investigations ^[4], and university policy and investigative outcomes in high‑profile affairs ^{[5] [6]}. A claim that two named individuals are sexual partners is a discrete factual allegation that would require direct reporting, documents, eyewitness corroboration, or a complaint record; none of those elements exist in the packet provided ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Legal and policy frame that matters if the allegation were true

If a supervisor‑subordinate sexual relationship exists, employers and courts focus not on private consent alone but on whether advances were “welcome,” the power imbalance, and whether adverse employment actions or retaliation occurred—factors courts weigh under the totality of circumstances in harassment law ^[3]. Many organizations and legal advisers treat relationships initiated by supervisors as particularly high risk and put reporting or disclosure obligations on supervisors to avoid favoritism and harassment claims ^{[5] [7]}.

4. Institutional responses one can expect and why they matter

When credible complaints surface about senior staff engaging in sexual relationships with subordinates, boards and employers are advised to investigate quickly and consider administrative actions such as leave while probing the facts, because governance literature ties such affairs to loss of trust and legal exposure ^[4]. Universities and employers that have faced scandals often adopt explicit policies prohibiting supervisors from initiating intimate relationships or requiring disclosure to mitigate risk ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Practical, evidence‑based steps that follow sound reporting and legal practice

To move from rumor to documented fact—without relying on speculation—an evidentiary path is necessary: check whether HR has a confidentiality or complaint record, request (or review) relevant company policy on intimate relationships and disclosure, and preserve contemporaneous documentation of any problematic conduct or retaliation; legal guides and employment attorneys recommend those steps when relationships intersect with authority and possible coercion ^{[3] [8] [7]}. Public reporting standards and corporate governance advice also counsel involving neutral investigators or the board if the allegation implicates senior management ^[4].

6. Conclusion: constrained answer and recommended next moves

Based solely on the materials supplied, it is not possible to confirm the allegation that “Sharon” (a supervisor) and “Albert” (an employee) are having sex because the packet contains no reporting, complaint, or verified evidence about those individuals; therefore the claim remains unverified by available sources ^{[1] [2]}. If the question is whether such conduct would matter, the sources make clear that supervisor‑initiated intimate relationships can create legal and governance risk and typically trigger disclosure requirements or investigations ^{[3] [5] [4]}.