Where are you located? To my knowledge, in the US, a lawsuit would be the only real recourse against the owner of a small company and only if it legally constitutes sexual harassment

@WesleyLong 'If he's the owner, then it's entirely up to him how to run his agency.', if they're a health care provider in the US, that's not true by a long shot. There are all sorts of professional standards, some of which may be backed up by government regulation. To the OP: rumors are just rumors, but if you actually have evidence of unethical behavior, consider contacting regulatory agencies or professional associations. I can't specify which ones to consider given the lack of location and the vague description of the business.

I'm in Florida.

@bruglesco he says things like "I did this for you, now you should think about going out with me." It's rather vague, but uncomfortable. It doesn't seem appropriate.

@CharlesE.Grant regualtory agencies may be the way to go. Thank you.

Quid pro quo is a heck of a lot different than flirting. I believe you need to edit your post to more accurately convey the situation.

Are you one of the employees he's been flirting with?

Would this be better suited for the Law site?

hmmm, if you're concerned about not disclosing which company it is, I'm affraid "mental health agency" probably says more than "a list of unethical practices" which have a great chance of being similar in many places.

Are there others that are also concerned about these issues, or have witnessed them?

I was reading along... "mmhmmm... yep, not good.... 'mental health'??? HOLY CRAP!" Wow. Anyway, a good question, even without that kicker. Also, I strongly disagree that "I did this for you, now you should go out with me" is anything resembling vague. That's the literal definition of sexual harassment "quid pro quo" and is as clear cut as it gets. Almost more shocking than the mental health angle that this person would be that blatant.

I hope that Kathy is not your real name. Of course, it's not :-)

@WesleyLong Doing something work related for a colleague or particularly a subordinate and asking for a date Is not quid pro quo! Even if he did something privately for a colleague or subordinate he cannot expect anything in return, unless agreed upon before that. And for most things you do privately for someone a date is also not quid pro quo as at indicates being emotionally open to a relationship (of some sort), it's different than say help someone unload something large from their car etc. It's never something you demand, especially not if the other one is a subordinate.

@Darkwing "quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something." Whether or not it was agreed upon or even appropriate, it is clear he expected 'something' in return. And I see my original comment has been removed. I love it when I get people mad. It means I've said something that needed to be said. Thank you all!

@WesleyLong 'Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour".' A date is not a favour and certainly not a service unless we talk of hookers. And it isn't clear that he made it clear he would expect anything in return. I help people all the time without expecting anything in return. And I'd expect an ice-age from anyone I'd demand a date in exchange for a favour unless a flirting level is already established and it's obvious it's a flirty "demand".

@WesleyLong in any case it's not an equivalent exchange, as a date is personal, the thing he did at work likely not. It enters the sexual and relationship domain and that is typically considered a no-go at the work place in particular in a hierarchy setting and even more so in this sleezy "pay me with affection" way.

@Darkwing - I wasn't even attempting to address the morality of the situation. It was clear that he intended this to be an "exchange," thus the term is used correctly. The fact that the "exchange" wasn't agreed to beforehand is only part of the inappropriateness of the situation. I used the term properly.

@WesleyLong but the suggestion that this is about Quid pro quo rather than "flirting" isn't correct. The main problem here is not that he expects something in return, which would be somewhat valid, though still improper without negotiating that first, the main problem is that he is considering this flirting while it's arguably sexual harassment. I.e. the advances are the problem, not this one instance that happens to revolve around a favour and an expected date in return.

I'm not emotionally invested in proving you wrong, the quid pro quo reference alone is simply not enough if you don't know that it's a fixed legal term. That link and PoloHoleSet (which I also just saw) clarify that. So in that context, yes, "Quid Pro Quo Harassment" fits.