SEXUAL HARASSMENT – QUID PRO QUO HARASSMENT
Sexual harassment can take the form of an economic “quid pro quo,” that is where an employee's engagement or non-engagement in sexual behavior is linked to the granting or denial of a tangible job benefit.
Quid pro quo sexual harassment typically involves either of the following:
-
A sexual advance or proposition made by someone with authority over the employee; and
-
An express or implied threat that if the employee does not agree to the sexual conduct, he or she will be subjected to a negative change to their employment.
-
If you do not engage in sexual behavior with me, there will be a negative impact on your employment.
Negative changes to an employee's employment can include being: fired, demoted, assigned unfavorable work assignments, assigned unfavorable shifts, or subjected to less favorable treatment than other colleagues.
OR
-
A sexual advance or proposition made by someone with authority over the employee; and
-
An express or implied promise that if the employee agrees to the sexual conduct, he or she will receive an employment related benefit.
-
If you engage in sexual behavior with me, you will receive a positive change to your employment.
Positive changes to an employee's employment can include receiving: a promotion, a raise, a bonus, more favorable work assignments, or more overtime work.
Authority Over Employee
The essence of this type of sexual harassment claim is that an individual with authority over the employee relies on that authority to extort sexual activity from the employee.
Causal Connection Between Engagement In or Refusal of Sexual Advances and Positive/Negative Change to Employment
It is the direct relationship between the employee's engaging in, or refusal to engage in, sexual conduct with his or her supervisor and the subsequent positive or negative promise to change or actual change to the employee's employment, that is central to the employee's claim.
How does an employee show that his or her refusal to engage in sexual behavior with a supervisor was connected to a subsequent negative change in employment?
An employee most often makes this showing through circumstantial evidence. Supervisors do not usually tell employees that the reason they are being subjected to a negative change to their employment is because they refused to engage in sexual conduct. Rather, supervisors are typically more subtle.
Circumstantial evidence of a causal connection between an employee's refusal to engage in sexual behavior with a supervisor and a subsequent negative change to their employment can include: being subjected to a negative change in their employment shortly after refusing to engage in sexual behavior; being given inconsistent reasons for the negative change in their employment; or a clear pattern of antagonism towards the employee following his or her denial of the sexual advances.