Common questions include whether it was a case of political correctness gone mad, or major sexual harassment - was it just joking around, or sexist and offensive behaviour?
What should be remembered is the publicity and comment is likely causing anguish for the victim; the woman courageous enough to make the complaint.
However, in the eyes of some, she is a troublemaker without a sense of humour. Others describe her as incredibly brave.
Not knowing the full context and details, it is hard to know much about her situation.
Imagine, though, being prepared formally to question a hero of Christchurch, the hard-working, open, popular, trendy, quirky, encouraging boss of the organisation where you work.
It is difficult, also, for anyone, including the State Services Commission investigators, to know exactly what went on and to understand fully the comments and actions and their context as well as their impact.
What the State Services Commission did conclude, however, was the misconduct was ''serious''.
In an employment context, that means far more than just some reasonably minor inappropriate behaviour.
While the commission did not recommend dismissal, it should be remembered the threshold for sackings in New Zealand, with its system of warnings and chances to remedy behaviour, is high.
It also needs to be acknowledged how fraught places of employment can be. People, with all their foibles, irritations and sensitivities, are thrust together hour after hour, day after day, year and year.
Colleagues can spend far more waking time in close contact with others at work than they do with spouses or families.
Tension and misunderstandings easily arise, and tolerance is often required on all sides.
There comes a time, nonetheless, when matters such as bullying or harassment become such that tolerance needs to be set aside and responses initiated.
Mr Sutton, in the media conference when he announced his resignation, broke the confidentiality of the process with his comments about ''sweetie'' and ''honey'' and hugs.
He, some might say cleverly, engendered sympathy by going on the front-foot, by insisting the woman and not he was the victim, and that his behaviour had to change.
Since then, though, reports indicate his remarks might well have gone much further than that, with suggestions of a ''visible G-string Friday'', unwanted body-press hugs, asking the complainant who she considered to be ''hot'' and ''sexy'' and who she would like to have sex with. That is a lot more than calling people ''honey''.
What is clear is acute offence was caused, and the woman and the State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie respected the confidentiality clauses of the agreement.
And the public heard only the bits Mr Sutton chose to reveal - at least until other details were revealed unofficially yesterday.
There are important lessons here not just for Mr Sutton but for all of us, especially those in charge.
What one person might think is fine and fun can well cause significant offence and hurt. We all have to put ourselves in the shoes of others and how they might feel.
If anyone is to venture into this ''jokey'' area, they have to understand where and to whom it will be inappropriate, upsetting or offensive.
There should be, understandably, a lower threshold of tolerance for those in high-powered positions. Fundamentally, everyone has to take care to respect the feelings of others.
Organisations, specifically, have to be aware about how the imbalance of power makes it difficult for most to speak up, let alone formally complain.
This is the imbalance that has made it so hard for victims of sexual abuse to speak, a lesson we need to have learned in 2014.
Hopefully, workplaces can have sufficient open communication that behaviour can be discussed and questioned, and be altered as necessary.
The workplace is a minefield and what is acceptable will vary widely between places and between individuals. In all cases, however, the starting point must be respect for others and for their feelings and beliefs.
