Hmm. Yes, I read the article. Twice.
I guess I'm of the mind that, especially pre-marriage, his private life IS is his private life. And that encompasses any work-related hi-jinx of a sexual nature as well. So long as it doesn't impinge upon someone's ability to do good work, why — again — do we care? Unless what he was doing was illegal/with children/animals, how is it a thing? This is stuff that's going back years and delving into his past to this extent seems ... excessive.
I acknowledge your point re the overreaction though [dang self-serving lawyer types!] and yes, it does give me pause to read that Ms Azaria was given a bump in pay that was surely anomalous compared to her less-favoured colleagues ... but is it facile of me to also comment that when I read the phrase 'Many found it curious ...', it's right up there with 'sources close to the star confide ...' and as a consequence, I glaze over?
I'm still erring on the side of: storm in a teacup. But I do accept that those quote grabs are worthy of further consideration. ;)