I took a quick look at your About page and saw a long list of posts about work- and sex-related issues. That being said, you're a good writer so perhaps distinguishing between fact and fiction is not really the point. As I read it, the point is to articulate a set of next steps in the posited circumstances.

Most of the responses seem to miss the point. The "author" of this tale of intrigue needs to begin her inquiry from a slightly different perspective. Let's call her Jane Doe. Ms. Doe is in the business of being Jane Doe. (Let's call that business JDI.") At the moment, JDI has one client, the company who pays JDI but, fundamentally, JDI is still selling its services for compensation. That is what all employees do. The first question therefore should be "what is in the best interest of JDI?"

Clearly, this employer does not appropriately reward all employees based on merit alone. Therefore, staying at that company does not maximize the value of JDI because it offers only the possibility of greater compensation for the services that JDI does in fact provide. Therefore, the second question is "what is the probability of receiving the desired level of additional compensation?" If JDI can get paid the same amount as the woman f**king her boss, then JDI is economically indifferent to their activity. However, Ms. Doe seems to think that it extremely unlikely.

That brings me to the last question. "Is there another employer who will pay JDI a salary and benefits that would satisfy the objectives of JDI?" JDI should constantly be in search of finding employers who will pay her an ever-increasing amount of money. If JDI is committed to being an employee, then such search is one of the key activities, responsibilities and objectives of JDI. After all, that IS the JDI business.

To paragraph the late (and great) President, John F. Kennedy (or his speech-writer, Ted Sorenson), ask not what you can do for your employer, rather, ask what you can do for yourself.