Sexual Favoritism is defined as unwanted sexual advances which make an employment benefit contingent upon an exchange of sexual favors. Although not a law unto itself, it matches Federal Quid Pro Quo law (this for that).

This type of harassment can occur when employees, who submit to a manager or supervisor’s sexual demands, are rewarded by that manager or supervisor. It is important to note however, that the wronged party(ies) is not the one who submitted, but those who did not and are denied the benefits of the submission. 

In other words, employees who are otherwise denied raises or promotions may claim that they were penalized by the sexual attention directed at the favored coworkers.

Examples:

Use of Power

  • Using position to request dates, sex, etc.
  • Propositioning an individual
Positive Response Results
  • Preferential treatment, favorable reviews
  • Raise
  • Promotion
  • Paid time off, etc.
Negative Response Results
  • Threats, unfavorable reviews
  • Unreasonable workload
  • Demotion
  • Loss of job

How has the court ruled in these cases? 

  • Isolated events and non-coerced submission to sexual demands have not been upheld by the courts as sexual harassment.
  • The employer may be held liable for unlawful sex discrimination against other persons who were qualified for but were denied that employment opportunity or benefit.
  • Supervisors may also be held liable.

Sexual FavoritismCourt Case

The EEOC alleged in its suit that Winslow’s Restaurant’s male general manager engaged in sexual harassment of women employees, which occurred on a regular basis. The abuse included offensive touching of women as well as crude sexual statements and requests for sexual favors, the EEOC charged.

Despite efforts by two female employees to report the harassment to the owners, the owners failed to take prompt and effective corrective action and instead allowed the general manager to engage in retaliatory conduct against the two women. The reprisals included a demotion and the reduction of hours which resulted in less pay, the EEOC said. Moreover, these two affected employees felt forced to leave the job because of the intolerable working conditions arising from the sexual harassment and retaliation.



Bookmark and Share