As an employment lawyer myself, I can say that article is completely accurate. Pretty much the mental checklist you go down when deciding what to believe.
I'll reiterate his point that there is generally a grain of truth in most harassment allegations. The grain sometimes is tiny, but it's usually something -- that's how people can convince themselves that they're justified even if they're lying about the larger issue. But the grain is often completely innocuous behavior distorted out of all proportion. Where some accused can get in trouble is if they're angry at the false implication/characterization being made, so they deny even the grain of truth. And if there is some extrinsic evidence that the grain is true, all of sudden the truly innocent accused looks like a liar on that little issue, so people start wondering if the larger lie is true as well.
This case is different, though. You've got a very smart, experienced judge who knows that he should admit any innocent grains that are true for his own benefit, yet he's flatly denying the entire basis of it. And on his side, none of the corroborating witnesses are backing up the accuser, so there is not even a shred of extrinsic evidence that there is a "grain" of truth (such as him being present at the party at all). He's the kind of guy I'd believe is telling the truth.
Everything else -- rightly -- suggests this is a false accusation as well. The complete lack of any contemporaneous corroboration, and the frankly curious lack of her ability to identify even the month in which this supposedly happened.
This accusation reeks.