No. This scenario has nothing to do with ambiguous definitions. The ambiguity in the definition of sexual harassment does not leave any possibility for what this guy allegedly did. This is a case of someone flagrantly disregarding acceptable standards for workplace behavior, despite having previously gotten in trouble for the same behavior. You can't say "the line is blurry!" when you're five timezones away from the line, and you've been repeatedly told that you're on the wrong side of it.

It really sounds like you're trying to fit this case to an agenda that's important to you, and you're working against your own interests by doing that. Bringing up ambiguous definitions in the context of a clear cut case discredits the idea that ambiguity is a problem. You'd be better off just accepting that this case is blatant, and saving the arguments about ambiguous definitions for a time when they're actually relevant.