Quid pro quo can be identified as a situation where a male supervisor insists on sexual favors in exchange for employment benefits from a female subordinate. The supervisor goes as far as retaliating if the female refuses his request. The guideline is contained under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which were enacted to prohibit discrimination as well as sexual harassment against employees in employment position.
The case of Bundy v. Jackson, was the first case in which the court ruled against sexual harassment of women in the workplace. The employee Sarah Bundy, of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, was constantly harassed sexually. She filed complaints and followed up through the chain of command but her claims were never investigated. When the plaintiff had reported it to her supervisors, she was told that any man who was in their right mind would want to rape her. The
…show more content…
In such situations, the quid pro quo claim may not be effective. Additionally, a for a quid pro quo to be effective, it must hint on employment factors such as raise, or even indicate signs of hostile environment. Without such indignations, the courts cannot categorize the case as a quid pro quo. For instance, the case on Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the plaintiff had claimed that her supervisor had continually subjected her to sexual harassment both during after working hours. The plaintiff also claimed that the supervisor forced her to have sexual intercourse with him and he fondles her many times in front of other employees to an extent of even raping her on some occasions. The reason for her submission was due to fear that she might be fired from her work. The supervisor as well as the employer denied the allegations claiming that they were falsified as a response to dispute at work (EEOC