Multiple former employees have accused reality TV personality Todd Chrisley and his company, Chrisley Asset Management, of fostering a sexually hostile workplace. Court documents and firsthand accounts detail severe and pervasive sexual harassment by Chrisley, who was the company’s owner and top executive. The allegations paint a disturbing picture of a workplace dominated by vulgar sexual comments, crude propositions, and retaliatory intimidation, all orchestrated by Chrisley himself. This investigative overview examines the severity of the claims, legal analyses of the case, expert opinions on workplace harassment, and the lasting impact on the victims – exposing Todd Chrisley’s harmful impact on individuals and the work environment he controlled​

starcasm.net​starcasm.net.

Former employees describe repeated lewd and demeaning behavior from Chrisley that began almost immediately after they were hired​. According to one lawsuit, Chrisley even bragged on the first day that he was an “HR nightmare,” foreshadowing the rule-breaking conduct to come​. He would openly pry into employees’ personal lives with inappropriate questions and make explicit sexual remarks in front of others. For example, Chrisley insinuated that a female employee slept with clients to achieve business goals, telling co-workers that she “slept her way through 48 closings”. When that employee received flowers from a friend, Chrisley crudely speculated “she must have swallowed for those!”​, implying sexual favors were exchanged for gifts.

On another occasion, Chrisley inspected a photo on a female employee’s desk of her two sons and shockingly asked if the boys’ father “was good in bed.” The employee was stunned into silence as Chrisley laughed at her discomfort​. Chrisley’s offensive conduct extended to new hires as well – when introducing a new female staffer, he announced she “prostituted on the weekends” and even asked her in front of colleagues, “Are your tits real?”​. Horrifically, that new employee was a breast cancer survivor who had undergone a double mastectomy, leaving co-workers “appalled and disgusted” by Chrisley’s comments​. According to the court filings, no setting was off-limits for Chrisley’s lewd behavior: during nearly every staff meeting he would loudly ask if employees “got laid over the weekend” and pepper conversations with sexual comments on a daily basis​f. He even suggested one female employee should work for his “escort service” on the side because she’d “make more money” working as an escort than at his company​.

Chrisley frequently denigrated women in the office, referring to female employees and other women as “escorts, strippers, skanky hos, sluts and prostitutes,” according to the complaint​. This pattern of name-calling and sexual ridicule was not only humiliating but also very public – Chrisley often yelled vulgar remarks across the office floor, to the point that the racket interrupted employees’ ability to do their jobs​. One manager recalled clients asking what was going on in the background due to Chrisley’s outbursts​. The harassment was so extreme that multiple women eventually came forward. In April 2009, an outside HR consultant was brought in to investigate “complaints about sexual harassment” at Chrisley Asset Management​. This indicates that Chrisley’s conduct wasn’t directed at only one person, but part of a broader toxic culture.

Notably, harassment allegations against Chrisley aren’t limited to female staff. In a separate complaint filed by additional employees, Chrisley was accused of subjecting male subordinates to sexual misconduct as well​

starcasm.net. Those employees claimed that Chrisley “frequently commented on the size of his penis, invited male employees to ‘jerk off’ with him in the bathroom, inappropriately touched employees, and routinely made lewd sexual gestures” toward staff​starcasm.net. In one instance, he allegedly asked a male employee – in front of others – to join him and another male co-worker in the restroom to masturbate together​towleroad.com​towleroad.com. The court filings state that Chrisley’s actions created a climate of fear where employees were afraid to object or complain about the sexual behavior “for fear they would lose their jobs in those tough economic times”​towleroad.com. In short, the harassment was pervasive, targeting multiple employees of both genders, and was overtly sexual and extremely degrading in nature.

Employees describe Chrisley Asset Management under Todd Chrisley as a classic hostile work environment – one in which complaining about the boss’s behavior felt futile or even dangerous. Chrisley would openly threaten employees with termination if they didn’t tolerate his antics: he “frequently threatened that any employee who did not like what he said or did… would ‘get a pink slip’ and be fired”​. With Chrisley himself as the highest-ranking executive, victims believed reporting him “would be futile” because he was in charge​. One staffer admitted she stayed silent “because I know Todd has always said, ‘anyone who does not like what I say or do gets a pink slip,’ and I need a job”. This atmosphere of intimidation allowed the harassment to continue unchecked for months.

When some employees finally did speak up – either by filing internal complaints or cooperating with the HR investigation – the retaliation was swift. After the third-party HR auditor began interviewing staff in April 2009, Chrisley and his management team allegedly tried to interfere with the process. According to one complaint, Chrisley’s VP of Operations offered a female employee a day off so she wouldn’t be in the office to talk with the investigator​. The employee refused to stay home, insisting she would “tell the truth” if interviewed​. Tellingly, when she met with the investigator from ADP in a conference room, Chrisley left his office door open so he or others could eavesdrop on what was said​. She confided to the investigator that she feared she would be fired for coming forward and even “feared for her life” due to Chrisley’s volatile temper​.

Her fears were not unfounded. Within minutes of that meeting, Chrisley allegedly confronted the woman’s supervisor and ordered him to “get rid of the bitch!”​. Soon after, management began writing her up for petty infractions: she received a formal reprimand for using her cell phone during her lunch break (even though company policy did not forbid it and others did the same without punishment)​. She was also reprimanded for missing a client luncheon that was never marked as mandatory. In an email to HR, the employee protested that these sudden write-ups were retaliation for her cooperation in the harassment investigation, noting that she had worked overtime and followed the rules diligently until then. “I know that I am being written up today because of the meeting I had… with ADP,” she wrote, adding “now I see why you offered me the day off today so I wouldn’t talk to her [the investigator]. She explicitly described the “very sexually volatile environment” in the office and explained that she had “only kept silent all this time” due to Chrisley’s pink-slip threats​.

Instead of addressing these concerns, Chrisley’s top lieutenant flatly denied any harassment was happening. In a dismissive reply (later included as evidence in court), the VP told the complaining employee: “No one is harassing you or [has] taken any action in regards to what you may have told ADP. You have never raised any issues with me, Brian or anyone else about any comments in the office. You certainly have had every opportunity to do so.”​

She went on to call the employee’s email “self serving and contrived” and said she would not “bother responding to every allegation. This brush-off response exemplifies how the company’s leadership refused to acknowledge the problem. According to the lawsuit, the VP then took no action to investigate or stop the ongoing harassment, effectively condoning Chrisley’s behavior​.

Over the next few days, the situation escalated. The stress and anxiety caused by the harassment and retaliation became so intense that the employee became physically ill – her doctor wrote a note excusing her from work on April 3, 2009 due to stress-induced sickness​. When she returned the following business day, she was suddenly placed on indefinite leave with no explanation​. She was not told what kind of leave or whether it was paid, and was simply sent home indefinitely. Given Chrisley’s “get rid of her” order and the fact that other women who complained had been terminated, she believed her firing was imminent In fact, she had reason to be afraid of more than just losing her job – the complaint states she “fears for her life” because Chrisley was so volatile and had boasted that his vast wealth meant “he can do whatever he wants. The message to employees was unmistakable: speaking up about Chrisley’s conduct meant risking your career and personal safety.

This pattern was repeated with others. After the initial lawsuit was filed, additional employees who cooperated with the investigation were also pushed out. In 2010, three more staff members (who had provided honest testimony about Chrisley’s behavior during the first case) claim they too were “summarily placed on leave” as retribution​

starcasm.net. It appears that anyone who corroborated the harassment allegations became a target. Such actions are textbook workplace retaliation, which is itself illegal under employment laws. By shielding Chrisley and punishing the whistleblowers, the company created a chilling environment where other employees learned to stay quiet or face severe consequences. “An employer violates federal law when it fails to address sex-based harassment in the workplace,” noted an EEOC regional attorney in an unrelated harassment case, “Title VII guarantees employees the right to work in an environment that is free from sexual harassment… and it prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for complaining of such unlawful conduct.”​eeoc.gov​eeoc.gov. At Chrisley Asset Management, however, the harassment was allowed to flourish unchecked – and those who dared oppose it were met with swift punishment.

The egregious nature of Todd Chrisley’s conduct eventually led his victims to seek justice through the courts. In April 2009, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia accusing Chrisley and his company of sexual harassment and maintaining a hostile work environment, among other claims​

starcasm.net. The initial complaint (filed by employee Sharon Meier) was soon joined or supported by at least two other female co-workers, Monica Tucker and Amanda Machitello, who had witnessed or experienced similar mistreatment​radaronline.com. Together, they alleged that “Mr. Chrisley subjected [the] Plaintiffs to sexual harassment that was so severe and pervasive, it created a hostile work environment.”​radaronline.com Chrisley’s own words are cited at length to illustrate the workplace atmosphere: “During staff meetings, Mr. Chrisley routinely asked… if they ‘got laid over the weekend.’ … At virtually every staff meeting, Mr. Chrisley would make loud, sexually suggestive comments”​radaronline.com. The complaint catalogued incident after incident of outrageous behavior – from the “prostitutes on the weekends” remark to the breast cancer survivor being asked if her breasts were real​radaronline.com. It also described how the plaintiffs were fired for daring to complain about the “sexually charged atmosphere” in the office​radaronline.com​radaronline.com.

Legally, the women’s case was built on both federal and state law violations. The lawsuit sought damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment – including sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment. They brought claims for hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, outlining how Chrisley’s conduct “interfered with [their] ability to do [their] job” and how complaining led to adverse actions like unwarranted reprimands and termination​

The complaint emphasized that the harassment was objectively and subjectively offensive, and that Chrisley, as owner and CEO, was acting as the company’s alter ego – making the company liable for his actions. In addition, the plaintiffs brought Georgia state-law tort claims, highlighting just how extreme Chrisley’s behavior was. They accused him of slander (for false, reputation-damaging comments like saying an employee “slept her way” to success), invasion of privacy (intruding into employees’ personal lives with sexual prying), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The IIED count in the lawsuit encapsulated the gravity of the allegations, stating that Chrisley’s acts were “intentional and/or reckless, extreme, outrageous, beyond all possible bounds of decency and should be regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community. This strong language mirrors the high legal standard for IIED – essentially arguing that Chrisley’s conduct was so abhorrent that it exceeded what civilized society can tolerate.

The severity of the claims opened the door to punitive damages as well. Georgia law allows punitive damages when a defendant’s behavior is willful or shows wanton disregard for others’ rights, and the plaintiffs sought such damages to punish and deter the kind of outrageous misconduct Chrisley was accused of​

They also requested injunctive relief to prevent similar abuses. In sum, the legal battle put Chrisley and his company in serious jeopardy: if proven, these claims could result in substantial liability and public exposure of his wrongdoing.

Faced with detailed evidence and multiple employees’ testimony, Todd Chrisley opted not to defend the case through a public trial. Court records show that the lawsuits were resolved out of court, with both sides reaching a settlement​

radaronline.com​starcasm.net. According to reports, the 2009 case was “ultimately dismissed” after an agreement was reached, and a second lawsuit filed in 2010 by three additional employees was also “settled in the end”​radaronline.com​towleroad.com. The settlements were likely confidential and included monetary compensation to the victims​starcasm.net. In statements to the press, Chrisley did not admit wrongdoing, but the quiet dismissal of the cases strongly suggests a financial payout to the former employees in exchange for their silence. By 2014, as Chrisley debuted his USA Network reality show Chrisley Knows Best, news of these past lawsuits emerged in the media, highlighting the contrast between his on-screen image and the serious accusations made against him​radaronline.com​radaronline.com. While the legal cases ended without a trial, the damage to Chrisley’s reputation was done: the litigation documents – now public – detail a pattern of workplace abuse that stands in stark opposition to the wholesome family-man persona he portrayed on TV.

“It was intentional, extreme, and beyond all bounds of decency,” said one legal filing, summarizing Chrisley’s conduct​

Employment law experts note that such explicit, repeated misconduct by a CEO would likely have resulted in a clear liability for the company had the case proceeded in court. Under federal law, an employer is strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassment if it culminates in a tangible employment action (like firing or demotion) against the victim – which is exactly what the Chrisley employees alleged​. Moreover, the company’s apparent failure to take preventive or corrective action (and in fact retaliating instead) would undercut any possible defense. “All employees deserve and should expect a workplace that is free of sex-based harassment and discrimination,” an EEOC official emphasized in a related context​eeoc.gov​eeoc.gov. By settling the cases, Chrisley avoided a judicial ruling on the merits, but the legal consensus is that the evidence of a hostile environment and retaliation was substantial. The confidential settlements also mean the victims never got a public admission of wrongdoing. However, the fact that multiple independent plaintiffs came forward – and that Chrisley paid to settle – is seen by many experts as validation of the truth and seriousness of their claims.

The toll that Chrisley’s alleged harassment took on employees was severe – both professionally and personally. In their court filings, the women described suffering anxiety, stress, insomnia, and depression as a direct result of the abuse and intimidation​. One plaintiff’s doctor intervened, prescribing medication for anxiety and pulling her out of work on medical leave because the situation had so deteriorated her mental health​. “As a result of said acts, [she] has suffered severe emotional distress and the corresponding physical manifestations of such distress,” the lawsuit stated, listing “nervousness, sleeplessness, depression” and other harms that required medical and psychiatric care. All three women in the first suit reported similar symptoms – essentially textbook outcomes of prolonged workplace harassment​radaronline.com. They were high-performing employees (one was praised as “one of [the] hardest working asset managers” shortly before she complained, yet the constant barrage of humiliation and fear of retaliation drove them to a breaking point. Ultimately, they lost their jobs – and with that, their income and professional standing – for no reason other than standing up to abuse.

Experts say these experiences are, unfortunately, not uncommon in cases of severe workplace harassment. “Sexual harassment in the workplace is a pervasive, chronic problem that can cause enduring psychological harm,” warns Dr. Antonio Puente, president of the American Psychological Association​

sciencedaily.com. Research shows that targets of workplace sexual harassment often experience anxiety, depression, PTSD, and a decline in overall well-being​sciencedaily.com. The trauma can be compounded when the harasser is a superior and the company fails to protect the employee. In Chrisley’s case, the harasser was the highest authority in the company, creating a power dynamic that left employees feeling trapped. “Organizational climate is a strong predictor of workplace sexual harassment… [especially] where there is a sense that complaints will not be taken seriously,” notes an APA journal article on the subject​sciencedaily.com. Here, Chrisley actively cultivated that climate of impunity – openly mocking HR rules, threatening those who objected, and silencing complaints. Such environments can lead to what psychologists call a “toxic workplace trauma,” where the constant stress of abuse and helplessness yields long-term emotional damage.

Beyond the personal pain, there are broader career and economic impacts on victims. In addition to lost wages and opportunities, being forced out of a job for reporting harassment sends a chilling message to other employees, effectively normalizing the hostile behavior. As one EEOC director put it, “Employees were made to feel afraid to complain about the offensive sexual behavior for fear they would lose their jobs,” describing the Chrisley Asset Management situation​

towleroad.com. This kind of fear-based silence allows harassment to continue and spread. Co-workers who witnessed Chrisley’s actions described being disgusted and uncomfortable, yet also felt powerless to intervene​. Over time, morale and trust in management eroded, creating a workplace where talented staff either left or suffered in silence. The ripple effects of such an environment can include high turnover, low productivity, and a reputation that deters potential new hires – all of which can poison a company’s culture and performance.

The legal resolution of the Chrisley cases, while providing some compensation to the victims, also means that Chrisley never faced a public reckoning in court for these allegations. Some observers have noted that Chrisley’s subsequent public endeavors proceeded as if nothing had happened – he went on to star in multiple seasons of a reality show, and only years later did media reports bring the settled lawsuits back into the spotlight​

radaronline.com​starcasm.net. However, from an accountability perspective, the detailed court filings remain an enduring record of his misconduct. Employment attorneys point out that such documents serve as “red flags” for future business partners and networks: the USA Network, for instance, was likely aware of the allegations when launching Chrisley Knows Best in 2014​radaronline.com. The fact that these claims involved multiple employees over multiple years suggests a systemic issue rather than a one-time lapse, underscoring the importance of robust workplace policies and leadership accountability.

In the end, the Todd Chrisley sexual harassment saga is a sobering case study in how unchecked power and a toxic culture can inflict deep harm on employees. It highlights the vital role of legal protections and enforcement in addressing workplace abuse. Without Title VII and the courage of victims to file complaints, behavior like Chrisley’s might remain hidden behind closed doors. While Chrisley himself avoided an official admission of guilt, the voices of those who worked for him tell a harrowing story – one that should serve as a warning to any employer who thinks they can act with impunity. “All employees deserve and should expect a workplace that is free of harassment,” the EEOC emphasizes​

eeoc.gov. The Chrisley case shows what can happen when that principle is flagrantly violated. The individuals who endured Todd Chrisley’s harassment paid a steep price, but by coming forward they shone a light on conduct that no one should have to tolerate to earn a paycheck. Their ordeal underscores that toxic workplace behavior can have profound legal, emotional, and human consequences – and that even wealthy, high-profile figures can and will be held to account for creating a hostile work environment.

Sources:

• Meier v. Chrisley Asset Management LLC, Complaint (N.D. Ga. Apr. 2009)​file-ecezickcghnhgqgtymrqks​file-ecezickcghnhgqgtymrqks​file-ecezickcghnhgqgtymrqks​file-ecezickcghnhgqgtymrqks.
• Radar Online, Reality Star Sued by Employees for “Vulgar” Sexual Harassment (Jan. 2, 2014)​radaronline.com​radaronline.com.
• Starcasm, Chrisley Knows Best’s Todd Chrisley accused of lewd comments in lawsuits (Mar. 19, 2014)​starcasm.net​starcasm.net.
• Towleroad, Todd Chrisley Asked Male Employee to Engage in Explicit Act (June 16, 2022)​towleroad.com​towleroad.com.
• EEOC v. North Georgia Foods, Inc., Press Release (Mar. 7, 2022)​eeoc.gov​eeoc.gov.
• ScienceDaily, Workplace sexual harassment ‘a chronic problem,’ says expert (Nov. 16, 2017)​sciencedaily.com​sciencedaily.com.