Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Sexual Harassment: The difference between 'quid pro quo' and a hostile work environment trick question: Which one of these scenarios constitutes sexual harassment? Imagine a work environment where a woman is told, 'you're not going to get this promotion/raise/stay in your current place of employment unless you sleep with me,' by her boss. Essentially, she is told, quid pro quo, she must exchange sexual favors for potential job and financial advancement and security. Of course, this is sexual harassment. But, now, imagine a different workplace scenario. No quid pro quo offer is made to the employee in question. However, daily this employee is subject to sexual innuendos and jokes by her boss. Pamphlets with expressly sexual references and content 'find their ways' to her in box. It's all a joke, her boss says, when she asks him to stop with such verbal and paper material. 'Why is she being so uptight?'
This behavior too, legally constitutes sexual harassment, in answer to the 'trick question'...
Although a quid pro quo scenario of harassment, such as the first detailed above, where a supervisor threatens to fire or not promote an employee if he or she doesn't have sex with the supervisor, a legal term that literally means "this for that," "what for what," or "something for something," may constitute the more easily proved scenario regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, creating a hostile work environment where an individual cannot do his or her job is also grounds for an allegation of sexual harassment.
There are certain differences beyond the nature of the allegations in the two scenarios. First of all, 'quid pro quo' is not only more easily proved if it is explicitly made to the employee, it is also far less common. In today's more politically correct, legally aware times, only the most dinosaur-like boss usually will make such an overt offer. Also 'quid pro quo' tends to come at the beginning of an employee's contract or term…
There are certain differences beyond the nature of the allegations in the two scenarios. First of all, 'quid pro quo' is not only more easily proved if it is explicitly made to the employee, it is also far less common. In today's more politically correct, legally aware times, only the most dinosaur-like boss usually will make such an overt offer. Also 'quid pro quo' tends to come at the beginning of an employee's contract or term of employment, unlike the constitution of a hostile work environment, where usually the employee has already accepted some position in the organization, and has been there for some period of time, however short a duration.
However, the creation of a hostile work environment, just as with a quid pro quo scenario, requires some concrete evidence that the harassment has occurred. Also, "while quid pro quo harassment is more typical of the sexual harassment scenario. It is also as constitutionally unprotected as any other form of threat or extortion. Hostile or abusive work environment, according to the law, is generally based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation, political affiliation, citizenship status, marital status, or personal appearance. It has more recently been expanded to include other forms of work environment harassment for instance offensive physical touching or vandalism and discriminatory job assignments." Also, unlike quid pro quo cases, in hostile work environment cases "there need not be direct economic harm, in fact the threat of a concrete action may be sufficient as long as there is ample evidence regarding both malice and frequency of this unwelcome conduct." ("Hostile Work Environment," 2004, Issues NY, (http://issuesny.tripod.com/home/id49.html)
The most famous current case regarding sexual harassment is perhaps that of disgraced Governor James McGreevy's, whose consensual relationship with a male staff member allegedly spiraled into the creation of a hostile work environment, which made it impossible for the individual in question to perform the tasks of his office. This also highlights how women and men can be the targets of harassment in the workplace. Similarly, Anita Hill alleged that Chief Justice Clarence Thomas created a hostile work environment for her when he overly discussed pornography -- as did a rather infamous case of a woman who claimed that a recapitulation of dialogue from a "Seinfeld" episode by male colleagues was directed against women in a harassing fashion.
Employees have more difficulty identifying this type of harassment and therefore it is more problematic to address (Icenogle, Eagle, Ahmad, & Hanks, 2002). It occurs where an employee endures catcalls and other comments about their manner of dress. If the comments are unwelcomed and incessant, the action of these employees becomes sexual harassment. Another example of this type of behavior also relates to the act of continuously asking a
Non-Discriminatory Workplace Environment To effectively deal with the problems of discrimination in the workforce, a workplace environment must strive to prevent discriminatory behavior from occurring between employees, must ensure that when discriminatory behavior does occur the participants involved in the conflict have a venue in which to express their differences and grievances, and finally, leaders in the workplace must make an effort to ensure that it doesn't occur in the
Sexual harassment can be legally defined as "verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, aimed at a particular person or group of people, especially in the workplace or in academic or other institutional settings, that is actionable, as in tort or under equal-opportunity statutes" ("sexual harassment," 2012). If a person in authority such as a boss, mentor, or official is found pressurizing a person holding an inferior position with
Sexual Harassment Should a person (employer or employees) be held liable for unintentional sexual harassment? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, under what circumstances? Give examples of particular cases that address both circumstances. Sexual harassment is defined as "any verbal or physical behavior with sexual connotations that brings discomfort or degrades the work environment, where the aggressor takes advantage of his or her position or repeated involvement to impose such behavior
individual with a communicable disease that is a disability is other wise qualified for the job? Individuals with disease can be judged for qualifications in the same way as any other individual applying for a job. Communicable or infectious diseases are considered to constitute a disability when the disease is impairing to such a degree that it "limits one or more major life activities" (Human Resources UNC). In these cases,
Today, it is not uncommon for managerial leadership to be drawn from one pool and placed in the other in order to facilitate greater intimacy between operational aspects separated by geography and culture. Though this strategy brings with it a number of notable benefits with regard to the coordination of global operations, it does also bear with it a number of challenges which fall upon the Human Resources department