Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT, ONE OF THREE TYPES OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, ENTAILS SUPERVISORS MAKING SEXUAL ADVANCES OR DEMANDS FOR SEXUAL FAVORS ON THEIR SUBORDINATES. A FIVE- ELEMENT TEST USUALLY IS APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER QUID PRO QUO HARASSMENT AS PROHIBITED BY TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 HAS OCCURRED. THREE OF THOSE FIVE ELEMENTS PRESENT MAJOR HURDLES FOR LITIGANTS. BURDEN-OF-PROOF REQUIREMENTS PRESENT ADDITIONAL MAJOR CHALLENGES. DESPITE THESE PROBLEMS, PLAINTIFFS CAN BE SUCCESSFUL AND CAN WIN SUBSTANTIAL REMEDIES. SEVERAL DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER, EXIST AMONG THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS, AND THESE PROBLEMS NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND/ OR CONGRESS. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, BY BECOMING AWARE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS ASSOCIATION WITH QPQ SEXUAL HARASSMENT, CAN TAKE STEPS TO AVOID THE OCCURRENCE OF SUCH HARASSMENT AND THEREBY AVOID BEING SUED BY THEIR WORKERS.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adair v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 782 F.Supp. 558 (D.Kan.1992).

Anderson v. S.U.N.Y Health Science Center, 826 F.Supp. 625 (N.D.N.Y.1993)

Babcock v. Frank, 783 F.Supp. 800 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1995).

Carlson v. U.S. HHS, 879 F.Supp. 545 (D.Md. 1995).

Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co, 49 F 3d 466 (8th Cir. 1995)

Donato v. Rockefeller Fin. Servs., U.S.Dist. LEXIS 17709 (S.D.N.Y 1994)

Ellert v. University of Texas, at Dallas, 52 F 3d. 543 (5th Cir. 1995).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 909 F.Supp. 1529 (M.D.Fla.1995).

10.

Franklin v. Gwmnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).

11.

Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391 (D.C Cir. 1995).

12.

Giordano v. William Paterson College, 804 F.Supp. 637 (D.N.J.1992).

13.

Harris v. Clyburn, U.S. App. LEXIS 2819 (4th Cir. 1995).

14.

Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc, 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993)

15.

Jendusa v Cancer Treatment Centers of American, Inc., 868 F.Supp 1006 (N D Ill. 1994).

16.

Karibian v. Columbia University, 14 F.3d 773 (2nd Cir. 1994).

17.

Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc. Autolite Div., 970 F.2d 178 (6th Cir. 1992).

18.

Koutselas-McDonald v. Kowal, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2237 (E.D.Ill.1995).

19.

Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct 1483 (1994)

20.

Marshall v. Miller, 873 F.Supp 628 (M.D.Fla. 1995).

21.

McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

22.

Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

23.

Miller v. Maxwell's Intern. Inc., 991 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1993).

24.

Neal v. Director, Dist. of Columbia Dept. of Corrections, U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11461, 11469, 11515 (D.D.C. 1995).

25.

Nichols v. Frank, 42 F.3d 503 (9th Cir.1994).

26.

Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100 (4th Cir. 1989).

27.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S.Ct. 2742 (1993).

28.

Saulpaugh v. Monroe Community Hosp., 4 F3d 134 (2nd Cir. 1993).

29.

Sauers v. Salt Lake County,1 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 1993).

30.

Saville v. Houston County Healthcare Authority, 852 F.Supp. 1512 (M.D.Ala.1994).

31.

Showalter v. Allison Reed Group, Inc, 767 F.Supp. 1205 (D.R.I. 1991).

32.

Thanning v. Gulotta, 898 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).

33.

Webb v. Hyman, 861 F.Supp.1094 (D.D.C.1994).

34.

Whitaker v. Port Auth. of New York & New jersey, U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14477 (S.D.N.Y 1993).

35.

Williams v. Runyon, U.S.Dis. LEXIS 4331 (N.D.Ill.1995).

36.

Stockdale, M.S. (1996) Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

37.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 1980). Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 C F.R. § 1604.11.

38.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995). Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace. Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges . Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

39.

Viniciguerra, J.L. (1994). "The Present State of Sexual Harassment Law." Cleveland State Law Review 42: 301-337

The Complexities of Human Behavior

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References