Hughes v. Pair Presents Potential Quid Pro Quo Loophole

The California Supreme Court in Hughes v. Pair (July 2009) ruled that sexual requests to a plaintiff, without consequential adverse action in response to a plaintiff’s refusal to comply with sexual favors, does not constitute quid pro quo sexual harassment. After the plaintiff’s trustees had voted to give her money for just one month for  Read More …

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

“Quid pro quo” translates from Latin to English as “this for that.”  The basic idea is that of an exchange.  I do something for you, and you, in turn, do something for me.  You may have heard the saying, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”  This conveys the same underlying message, and it  Read More …

Unfulfilled Threats May Negate “Carrot” Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

You are probably familiar with the old analogy of someone using a carrot or a stick to induce another to do something. In the context of quid pro quo (this for that) sexual harassment, a harasser could use a “carrot” or a “stick” to threaten a victim. cialis sale For example, if a harasser uses  Read More …

Proving Implicit Conditions For Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment: Victim Must Only Show that Condition Was Reasonably Inferred

In order to establish a case of quid pro quo sexual harassment, an employee must show that the harasser explicitly or implicitly conditioned a job, a job benefit, or the absence of a job detriment, upon the employee’s acceptance of sexual conduct.” Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir.1995). In quid pro quo  Read More …