I respect this interpretation but did they link to the actual suit?I'm not seeing the sexual advances in her story.
She mentions him offering him drinks and rejecting those drinks without issue. She mentions him inviting her to member's only lounges and her rejecting those offers without issue. She mentions having drinks with him and telling him that she is not a drinker, again without issue.
They fell out when she accused him of favouring an act because he was allegedly sleeping with her.
Buy all means sue him for breach of contract if there is a legally binding agreement he failed to honour. I'm not seeing the sexual harassment element.