Difference Between Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Work Environment

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' posed at the beginning of this paper.

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 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.