The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, age, national origin, and sex. Federal law is broken into two categories: Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment.

Quid Pro Quo means this for that. In other words, something is given in return for something else. This category of sexual harassment includes:

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

The caveat here, however is that this harassment occurs when this conduct is tied to either explicitly or implicitly to the employee’s employment. In other words, accepting or rejecting the harassment effects employment decisions regarding the employee.

Example:

Quid Pro Quo occurs when a manager or supervisor makes unwelcome sexual advances toward an employee and either states or implies that the employee must submit in order to keep his or her job or to receive a raise, promotion, or job assignment. This can only occur when the harasser has authority over the employee.

Employers are at great risk as this type of harassment need only occur once. This type of harassment does not have to meet the “unwelcome and repeated” requirements of the hostile environment law.

The courts have ruled that even if an employee submits to the demands and receives promotions, raises, etc. a case still exists. In addition, the supervisor may also be held liable.

Court Case

EEOC AND TANIMURA & ANTLE SETTLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE IN THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA — The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Tanimura & Antle, one of the largest lettuce growers/distributors in the United States, announced today that they reached a $1,855,000 voluntary settlement, approved by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in San Jose, California.

In its federal court complaint, the EEOC alleged that a Tanimura & Antle production manager subjected a female employee, Blanca Alfaro, to quid pro quo sexual harassment, i.e. required sexual favors as a condition for employment and the receipt of job benefits. The EEOC alleged that Alfaro was subsequently subjected to a hostile work environment, which included constant unwelcome sexual advances by that production manager and another management employee. The Commission further alleged that Alfaro was discharged in retaliation shortly after complaining about the unwelcome advances.

Protect your company through online sexual harassment training.  Chrome Zebra’s interactive training is the economical choice in training.

Tags: online sexual harassment training, Quid Pro Quo, sexual harassment prevention