Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court explained the elements required for a quid pro quo sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States, including Los Angeles.

For an employer’s conduct to rise to the level of quid pro quo sexual harassment, a tangible employment action must result from a refusal to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demand.  A tangible employment action is a change in position, benefit, duties, or even a job loss.  So verbal hazing and unwelcome touching did not amount to a quid pro quo sexual harassment cause of action.

So if you are alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment in Los Angeles, you need to show that there was a demand for sexual conduct and because you refused to perform those acts, you suffered a lost of benefits, duties, pay, or even your job.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.