Quid Pro Quo is a Latin phrase that is used in English as a Latin phrase to refer to an exchange of goods and services in which one transfer is dependent on the other; “a favor in return for a favor”. Similar meanings of phrases include “give and take”, titfor tat, “you scratch mine back, and you’ll scratch mine”, and “one-handed wash the others”. For the same purpose, other languages may use different phrases.

Title VII and the California law prohibit Quid Pro Quo harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is when an employee’s boss, manager, or other authority figure suggests to the employee that they will get something in return for some kind of sexual favor. Quid pro quo harassment can occur when a manager threatens or reprimands an employee for refusing any type of sexual behavior. Quid pro quo harassment can also occur when job applicants are asked to accept or reject sexual advances. A quid pro quo harassment lawyer can help.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Quid pro quo is an agreement between two or more people that involves a reciprocal exchange or supply of goods and services.
• Latin for “something for nothing”, the phrase means “something for something”.
• A court may declare a business contract invalid if it is unfair or unbalanced. In these cases, a quid pro quo consideration may be necessary.
• Quid pro quo arrangements in politics may be acceptable, provided they don’t involve bribery or other misappropriation.
• A quid pro quo arrangement may not be legal but it could be viewed as unethical and shady.

Do You Know What are 3 Things to Know About Quid Pro Quo Harassment?

• Requirements for a Title VII claim
• What the coercion can look like
• What tangible employment action can look like

There are two main kinds of sexual harassment prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The phrase “quid pro quo” refers to an exchange, tit for tat. In this context, an economic quid pro quo is illegal. What is it exactly? It’s when an employee is subjected to unwanted sexual conduct that is linked to job benefits, such as getting hired, getting to keep one’s job, or getting a good promotion or performance review. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) has adopted the same method of distinguishing between different kinds of sexual harassment claims. Movements like the Me Too movement have brought to light just how common sexual harassment is in the workplace and highlight the need for everyone to understand their rights under the law. This article will go over some of the facts that are good to know about quid pro quo harassment in particular. If you believe you have been the victim of sex discrimination in any form in the workplace or if you have been retaliated against for complaining of sexual harassment or other discrimination, contact an employment attorney to figure out what your legal recourse is.

1. Requirements for a Title VII claim

There are three things that an employee has to prove to establish a Title VII violation on the grounds of quid pro quo sexual harassment. First, they must show that they were subject to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were unwelcome from a supervisor. It is key that the advances were unwelcome and that the supervisor has some sort of authority over the employee. Second, the harassment has to be based on the sex of the employee. This means that a supervisor who solicits sex from both male and female employees is not technically liable for a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim because the treatment of employees, although terrible, is not based on sex. To clarify, that does not mean such a supervisor could not get in legal trouble for that kind of behavior, but it would be under different legislation and not under sex discrimination law. Third, the consequences of the harassment for the employee must have included tangible aspects of their compensation, conditions, terms, or privileges of employment being affected. Furthermore, it is important to note that the employer is liable for the supervisor’s harassment of an employee because they placed them in a position that allowed them to engage in such behavior. It doesn’t matter if the employer knew about the harassment should have known about it or was just negligent and failed to prevent it – regardless, the employer is vicariously liable. Consequently, employers should be very careful who they empower to take action on behalf of their company.

2. What the coercion can look like

In quid pro quo sexual harassment cases, the coercion by the supervisor can be explicit or implied. Oftentimes in cases of quid pro quo harassment, a supervisor will threaten the employee to comply with a sexual advance or proposition if the employer wants to keep their job or prevent a demotion or some other loss of job benefits. In other cases, the supervisor might promise better job-related benefits like a promotion, a raise, or a great recommendation in exchange for a sexual favor. Regardless, the request for sexual favors does not have to be explicit. Most supervisors will not say to a subordinate, “Sleep with me or I will fire you,” but instead are much more subtly coercive. For example, a supervisor might make veiled statements or continue to make sexual requests even after being rejected, both of which can constitute coercion. Legally, as long as the supervisor’s sexual advances could be reasonably inferred to be linked to employment benefits, the victim has a case. Moreover, the standard for reasonable inferences in this context is based on what a reasonable woman (if the case regards a woman alleging sexual harassment, that is) would infer in the position of the employee according to a landmark decision in the case of Holly D. v. California Institute of Technology. This means that comments that might not constitute sexual harassment for a man could constitute it for a woman, which makes sense; given the long history of discrimination and sexual violence against women, of course, women generally have different perceptions of sexual threats than men.

3. What tangible employment action can look like

Recall that in quid pro quo cases of sexual harassment, the employee has to face some tangible employment action linked to sexual coercion. Moreover, the plaintiff has to show that this action was a result of their resisting the sexual advances of their supervisor. In other words, there must be a causal connection, which is usually proved with circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. Proximity in time can be a good first indicator of causality, as can other things like inconsistently stated reasons for taking action against the victim or a pattern of antagonism after the rejection. So what can tangible employment actions in this context look like? Well, it has to be some sort of significant change in employment status, which means it can be things like being fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied benefits. Typically, the action has to cause direct economic harm to the employee, which is a higher standard than, for instance, that applied to Title VII retaliation cases. In one case, Durham Life Insurance Company v. Evans, a female life insurance agent was forced to leave her office and relinquish her secretary and her files. These actions were deemed to qualify as tangible employment action, as they so much disrupted her working conditions that they decreased her earning potential. In another case, Keeton V. Flying J. Inc., the plaintiff was laterally transferred to a distant location and it was decided that that could constitute a tangible adverse employment action due to the time it took to commute to remain employed.

Quid Pro Quo Origins

The Latin phrase quid pro quo meant that something had been replaced, such as this. English speakers used the term in its original Latin meaning. It was first used in the 1530s to refer to the act of substituting one medicine for another, either intentionally or unintentionally. quid pro quo was a modern term to describe similar exchanges by the end of that century.

The expression quid pro quo was first used in 1654 to refer to anything done for personal gain or with an expectation of reciprocity. It has a positive connotation. It refers to Christ’s covenant as “that proves not a nudum Pactum, which is a naked contract without quid pro quo“. The part of Christ’s followers must do their part, which is to “forsake all works of the devil”.

Quid Pro Quo would continue to be used by English speakers in legal or diplomatic contexts as an exchange for equally valuable goods and services.

Latin for quid pro quo is do ut der, which corresponds to English’s use of the phrase. However, quid pros quo (or its equivalent quid pro quo) retains its original meaning, which is that something was unwittingly misunderstood or incorrectly told or understood.

If the exchange seems excessively one-sided in the United States courts may question whether a quid pro quo existed and may declare the contract null. The term “quid pro quo” is often used in negative terms because corporations can cross ethical boundaries to reach these highly valuable and mutually beneficial agreements with large, big companies. These deals often involve large amounts of money and may lead to exclusive partnerships or distortions of economic reports.

Lobbyists in the United States are legally allowed to support candidates who hold positions that the donors agree with or will benefit them. This conduct is considered bribery if there is an obvious exchange between the contribution or official acts, past or present. The term quid pro quo refers to such an exchange.

Sexual harassment

Workplace sexual harassment is defined in the United States by labor law. It can take two forms: “Quid-pro-quo” harassment and “Hasi work environment harassment. Only supervisors with the power to take tangible employment actions (e.g. hire, fire, promote, etc. ), can commit “Quid pro quo” harassment. “Quid pro quo” harassment can be committed by a supervising harasser who must have “immediate (or consecutively higher) authority over an employee.” A supervisor could use his/her position of authority to obtain sexual relations based on the job candidate’s need for employment. Non-decision-making and co-workers cannot engage in “Quid pro quo” harassment of other employees. However, an employer may be held liable for these employees’ behavior under a hostile working environment claim. It is important to determine whether the harassing employee is a supervisor. If they are, then the employer can be held vicariously responsible for their actions. The Agency law holds the employer responsible for the actions taken by the supervisor because they were in a position to direct the harassment.

The plaintiff must establish that they were subject to “unwelcome” sexual conduct. This conduct is used to support an employment decision.

Unwelcome Sexual Conduct: The conduct of an employee will be examined by a court to determine if the supervisor made inappropriate sexual advances. Meritor Savings Bank in Meritor Savings Bank, the Court held that voluntary sex between employees and supervisors does not prove that sexual advances by a supervisor were welcomed. If necessary, the Court stated that evidence of subordinate employees’ provocative clothing and public sexual fantasies may be presented as evidence.

Term of Employment: To retain/be hired for the job, the subordinate/job applicant must agree to the sexual advances made by the supervisor. Sexual harassment is, in essence, a part and parcel of their job. A supervisor might promise a raise to an employee if she/he takes her/his date out with him/her, or threaten to fire the employee if they don’t have sex with each other.

Tangible Employment Action: An employee must submit or refuse to accept the advances of a supervisor. Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth, stated that tangible employment action was “a significant change to employment statuses such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment or a decision causing significant changes in benefits.” Supervisors are the only ones who can take tangible employment actions, provided they have the authority to do so. Unfulfilled threats made by a supervisor regarding an adverse employment decision were not sufficient to establish a Quid pro quo, but they are relevant for a claim for Hostile work environments. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that constructive dismissal can be counted as an employment action (allowing for a Quid pro quo claim for sexual harassment) if it creates a situation in which a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.

After the plaintiff has proven these three elements, the employer cannot assert an affirmative defense. For example, if the employer has a policy against sexual harassment to prevent and respond to sexual harassment issues, it can only dispute that the conduct occurred. It can also dispute the fact that the employee was not a supervisor and that there was no employment action.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue and needs to be treated as such. If you have been the victim of sexual harassment or other discrimination at work, call a discrimination lawyer to help you figure out what you can do.