quid pro quo harassment

Quid pro quo harassment is equally unlawful whether the victim resists and suffers the threatened harm or submits and thus avoids the threatened harm.

"This does not involve any claims of quid pro quo harassment, any demand for sexual favors or any claims of touching, but is essentially a claim of inappropriate language," he said.

A plaintiff could claim that there was quid pro quo harassment or that the workplace constituted a "hostile environment," which, depending on the jurisdiction, can cover things as diverse as inappropriate touching and dirty jokes.

Quid pro quo harassment also occurs when an employee makes an evaluative decision, or provides or withholds professional opportunities based on another employee's submission to verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

Proceeding from the premise that an employer faces vicarious liability for quid pro quo harassment, the district court thought it necessary to apply a negligence standard because the quid pro quo merely contributed to the hostile work environment.

In one, often called quid pro quo harassment, the supervisor takes an adverse action - like dismissal, failing to promote, reducing benefits or reassigning with significantly reduced responsibilities - against an employee who refuses to submit to the supervisor's sexual demands.

In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission followed MacKinnon's framework in adopting guidelines prohibiting sexual harassment by prohibiting both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment (see 29 C.F.R. 1604.11(a)).

The question of an unfulfilled threat is an issue in Ms. Jones's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which, in contrast to the Seventh Circuit, requires proof of "tangible job detriment" for a plaintiff in a quid pro quo harassment case to win.

Plaintiff Is Required to Show a Tangible Job Detriment to Prove Quid Pro Quo Harassment Plaintiff also wrongly asserts that she can establish quid pro quo harassment without proving that she suffered a tangible job detriment.