Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment: California Law for Employers
Introduction
Quid pro quo sexual harassment is one of the two major forms of workplace sexual harassment recognized in California. This concept refers to situations where a supervisor or manager makes job benefits—such as promotions, raises, preferable assignments, or even continued employment—dependent on an employee’s submission to sexual advances or other conduct of a sexual nature. Such exchanges, whether direct or implied, are unlawful under California law and expose employers to significant liability.
Understanding “Quid Pro Quo”
The Latin phrase “quid pro quo” means “this for that.” In the employment context, it describes a scenario where an employee is told—explicitly or implicitly—that compliance with sexual demands is required to obtain or retain a job benefit, or to avoid negative treatment, such as demotion or unfavorable schedules. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 607)
What makes quid pro quo harassment distinct is the abuse of power: the perpetrator is almost always a supervisor or manager with the authority to affect the victim’s terms or conditions of employment. Job applicants, contracted service providers, and current employees can all be victims if subjected to such misconduct.
Legal Elements in California
To prove quid pro quo sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the following factual elements must be established:
The plaintiff was either an employee, a job applicant, or provided services under contract to the defendant.
The alleged harasser made unwelcome sexual advances or engaged in other unwanted sexual conduct.
Employment terms, benefits, or favorable working conditions were made contingent (by words or conduct) on submission to the harasser's sexual demands.
The harasser was acting as a supervisor or agent of the employer at the time.
The plaintiff suffered harm.
The harasser’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. (CACI No. 2520).
These elements make clear that quid pro quo harassment is not limited to overt demands for sex in exchange for a promotion. Threats, suggestions, hints, or offers—all can qualify if linked to workplace benefits or penalties. (Mogilefsky v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414)
Employer Liability and Prevention
California law holds employers strictly liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisors and managers. Even if company leadership was not directly involved, the business may still be held accountable for failing to prevent or promptly address such misconduct.
Employers should understand that a safe workplace is mandatory. Robust anti-harassment policies, thorough training, confidential reporting channels, and swift response to complaints all help minimize legal exposure and promote a respectful work environment.
Practical Recommendations
Clearly prohibit quid pro quo harassment in employee handbooks and training materials.
Train all supervisory personnel on appropriate boundaries, reporting obligations, and legal risks.
Establish confidential, accessible systems for employees to report harassment without fear.
Act promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints or rumors involving harassment.
Ensure disciplinary measures and remedial actions are consistently applied and documented.
Conclusion
Quid pro quo sexual harassment exploits workplace authority and undermines employee dignity, morale, and legal compliance. California's laws are clear: any attempt to make employment benefits contingent on sexual favors is strictly prohibited, and employers can be held responsible for all resulting harm. By prioritizing ethics and compliance, business owners support both their workforce and their legal risk management.
Citations
Gov. Code, § 12940(j); Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 607; Mogilefsky v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414; Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742, 751; CACI No. 2520.
