Federal employment discrimination law prohibits a person in power from requesting sexual favors in exchange for a job, and/or refusing to hire an applicant who does not comply with sexual advances.
Requesting sexual favors in exchange for a job, promotion or other tangible job benefit is referred to as “quid pro quo” harassment.
In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the settlement of a federal discrimination complaint with a Subway franchise owner in New York. The EEOC alleged a blatantly shocking example of quid pro quo harassment by a store’s manager.
In a text message to one of the women, he said having sex with him meant the “job is yours.”
The women did not comply and were not hired, according to the EEOC.
Interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Supreme Court has recognized two types of sexual harassment: hostile work environment and quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo harassment occurs when “submission to or rejection of [unwelcome sexual] conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual,” according to EEOC guidelines.
Quid pro quo harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes and Les Moonves fueled the #MeToo movement, demonstrating that the action of demanding sexual favors in exchange for job opportunities was sadly more common than many thought.
For these reasons, individuals with power should not proposition anyone in the organization, or over whom the person has power, for relationships or sexual favors.
Further, managers should not engage in a consensual sexual or romantic relationship with a subordinate employee. Too often, managers will engage in such a relationship (many times in secret) and then when the relationship ends, the victim may claim that sexual misconduct occurred.
Employers should, at a minimum, train its management on the expectation that no harassment will occur in the workplace, and explain specifically the behavior that it will not tolerate.
With regard to quid pro quo, employers are strictly liable for the acts of their managers. Thus, if a manager requests sexual favors in exchange for a job benefit (for instance, a pay raise) and the employee does not fulfill the sexual favor and then is denied the pay raise, the employer is liable for the actions of its manager.
By way of example, former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson accused in a lawsuit filed against Ailes, the late former chairman of Fox News Channel, that Ailes reduced her salary, curtailed her on-air appearances and declined to renew her contract after she rebuffed his advances.
She claimed these events occurred after Ailes told her, according to her complaint, “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better.”
Fox News’ parent company settled with Carlson for $20 million.