Also known as: quid-pro-quo harassment · quid pro quo
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A form of sexual harassment in which a person in authority conditions employment or housing benefits on submission to unwelcome sexual advances. The claim requires proof that the harassment was based on sex and that tangible job or housing consequences followed from refusal or acceptance.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Quincy Quan, a state judge, attends a private dinner hosted by a recently convicted developer. The developer offers Quincy a favorable ruling in an upcoming housing case if Quincy agrees to a private meeting. Quincy accepts the invitation and later issues the ruling. The conduct creates an appearance of improper conditioning of judicial action on personal benefit.
Quiana Qualls works as a teller at a bank. Her supervisor states that she will receive a promotion only if she engages in sexual activity with him. Quiana refuses and is passed over for the position. The explicit linkage between the sexual demand and the employment benefit establishes the claim.
Quest Quail reports to a district manager at a retail chain. The manager tells Quest that her annual raise depends on attending a weekend trip alone with him. Quest attends under protest and later receives the raise. The conditioning of compensation on the sexual encounter supports liability.
Quintin Quest rents an apartment from a property owner. The owner informs Quintin that renewal of the lease requires sexual favors. Quintin refuses and receives a notice of non-renewal. The explicit tying of housing benefits to sexual compliance creates the claim.
Quillan Quick works on a construction crew. His foreman states that assignment to paid overtime shifts will occur only if Quillan submits to physical contact. Quillan refuses and loses the extra shifts. The denial of work opportunities following the refusal satisfies the elements.
Queenie Quick serves as a lifeguard for a city beach. Her supervisor schedules desirable shifts only for employees who comply with his advances. Queenie refuses and is assigned only undesirable early-morning hours. The tangible change in working conditions following the refusal supports the claim.
The plaintiff must show that a supervisor or person in authority conditioned a tangible job or housing benefit on submission to unwelcome sexual advances and that the harassment occurred because of sex.
No. The claim arises when the benefit is conditioned on submission, whether the plaintiff submits or refuses and suffers the consequence.
The condition may be shown by explicit statements or by circumstantial evidence that the benefit was withheld because of the refusal.
…review of the police power, this provision is eminently reasonable. Even accepting the Court's novel insistence on a precise quid pro quo of burdens and benefits, there is a reasonable relationship between the public benefit and the burden created by appellants' development. The movement of development closer to the ocean…