Tag: sex discrimination

Posted on

Understanding Quid Pro Quo Harassment at Work

Forced arbitration, Sexual harassment and discrimination lawyers. Non-compete agreements something akin to indentured servitude.

Quid Pro Quo Harassment: An Employee’s Complete Guide

Workplace harassment impacts more than just individuals; it creates a toxic environment that can cripple an organization. Among the many forms of harassment, quid pro quo harassment is particularly concerning due to its exploitation of power dynamics. Understanding this type of misconduct, its legal implications, and how to prevent it is critical for fostering a safe and equitable workplace.

This guide seeks to demystify quid pro quo harassment, share real-world examples, explain the legal framework, and provide actionable prevention strategies so employees and employers alike can work towards respectful and inclusive environments.

What is Quid Pro Quo Harassment?

At its essence, quid pro quo harassment occurs when someone in a position of power demands sexual favors in exchange for professional benefits or to avoid negative workplace consequences. Translated from Latin, “quid pro quo” means “this for that” and perfectly describes the transactional nature of this behavior.

Key Characteristics of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

To recognize and address this form of harassment, it’s important to understand its common traits:

  • Unwelcome Conduct: The victim does not consent to or welcome the behavior.
  • Imbalance of Power: Often arises between supervisors or managers and subordinates.
  • Tangible Job Impact: Links professional opportunities, promotions, or employment status directly to compliance with sexual demands.

Example: A supervisor tells an employee they can secure a promotion only if they agree to a romantic relationship. When the employee refuses, their promotion is withheld or job performance reviews are negatively impacted.

Quid pro quo harassment is more than unethical; it is illegal and can cause psychological, professional, and financial harm to victims.

The Legal Framework Protecting Employees

The law is clear on the prohibition of quid pro quo harassment, offering legal recourse for victims.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964)

Under Title VII, quid pro quo harassment is classified as a form of sex discrimination. It strictly prohibits employers from conditioning any employment decision on the submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual advances.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Guidelines

The EEOC enforces Title VII and outlines specific policies regarding quid pro quo harassment:

  1. Direct and Implied Actions: Both overt demands and subtle threats or implications qualify as harassment.
  2. Employer Liability: Employers are held directly responsible for the misconduct of supervisors if it results in “tangible employment action,” such as termination, demotion, or a loss of benefits.

Together, these laws create accountability and encourage victims to assert their right to a harassment-free workplace.

Real-Life Cases of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Understanding how the law protects victims is easier when examining actual cases. These highlight the dire consequences of this type of behavior.

1. Barnes v. Environmental Protection Agency

Paulette Barnes, a payroll clerk, was coerced by her supervisor into engaging in sexual favors to secure career advancement. Once she refused, her job responsibilities were withdrawn, and she was ultimately fired. Initially dismissed, her case was reversed on appeal, with the court ruling that quid pro quo harassment constitutes an illegal, discriminatory condition for job retention under Title VII.

2. Leavines v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc.

At Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, a manager propositioned an employee via Snapchat, offering better shifts in exchange for sexual favors. After the employee refused and reported the harassment, her hours were reduced, and she was terminated shortly after. The court allowed the case to proceed, reaffirming the legality of claims involving quid pro quo harassment and retaliation.

These cases remind us that quid pro quo harassment has severe personal and professional implications and that legal systems enforce accountability for perpetrators.

The Impact of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

The effects of quid pro quo harassment ripple far beyond the victim, disrupting workplace morale and overall organizational success.

Psychological and Professional Impact on Employees

  • Mental Health Strain: Anxiety, depression, and fear often manifest in victims, compromising their emotional well-being.
  • Career Damage: Victims lose professional opportunities or are forced to leave their jobs.
  • Loss of Confidence: Employees may feel devalued, leading to disengagement.

Organizational Consequences

  • Legal and Financial Repercussions: Lawsuits and settlement costs strain company resources, while damaged reputation deters new talent.
  • Lower Productivity: A hostile workplace environment decreases morale and increases turnover.
  • Erosion of Trust: Witnessing unfair practices diminishes employee trust in leadership.

The stakes for proactively addressing quid pro quo harassment could hardly be higher.

How Employers and Employees Can Prevent Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Despite its seriousness, quid pro quo harassment can be prevented with deliberate actions and strong policies.

1. Implement Comprehensive Workplace Policies

  • Clearly define what constitutes workplace harassment, including quid pro quo harassment.
  • Display zero-tolerance policies visibly in the workplace and employee handbooks.

2. Conduct Regular Training

  • Provide mandatory, interactive harassment prevention training for supervisors and all employees.
  • Use role-playing exercises or real-world case studies to ensure participants recognize and handle misconduct effectively.

3. Establish Safe Reporting Mechanisms

  • Create confidential and multiple reporting channels, such as hotlines or third-party representatives.
  • Protect individuals who report harassment from retaliation through clear safeguards.

4. Enforce Accountability

  • Investigate all claims promptly and thoroughly.
  • Hold perpetrators accountable with consistent disciplinary actions, up to and including termination.

5. Foster a Culture Rooted in Respect

  • Encourage an open-door policy where employees can communicate concerns freely.
  • Model inclusive leadership that prioritizes equity, fairness, and safety.

These measures empower employees to take full ownership of their rights while ensuring that leadership actively maintains an equitable environment.

Documenting Your Experience of Quid Pro Quo Harassment

If you’ve experienced quid pro quo harassment, taking deliberate and documented steps can strengthen your case.

Tips for Documentation

  • Record Specifics: Note dates, times, locations, and details of incidents.
  • Save Correspondence: Keep emails, text messages, screenshots in the case of Snapchat, or any written evidence of harassment or implied threats.
  • Identify Witnesses: Note any individuals who witnessed the misconduct and may testify on your behalf.
  • File Complaints: Report the incident to your HR department or designated channels and request written confirmation of receipt.

Having thorough documentation can significantly strengthen both informal resolutions and legal cases.

Take Action for a Culture of Respect

Quid pro quo harassment undermines the dignity and equality of any workplace. Building and maintaining a harassment-free environment requires a collective effort from both leadership and employees. By implementing proactive measures, enforcing consequences, and ensuring safe reporting channels, businesses can create workplaces that empower every individual.

If you or someone you know has been affected by quid pro quo harassment, consulting a seasoned legal professional can make all the difference. Helmer Friedman LLP stands ready to provide confidential consultations and expert legal support. Contact us today, and take the first step toward justice.

Posted on

Discriminatory Scheduling Policy Gender Equality Settlement

Women firefighters also fight for equality. Workplace discrimination and harassment lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Exciting news from Dallas County! This week, the commissioners approved a significant settlement of $1.65 million benefiting nine brave current and former female detention officers. These women took a stand against a gender-based scheduling policy that a federal appeals court deemed discriminatory, highlighting a critical issue of fairness in the workplace.

Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.

Back in 2019, the Dallas County Jail made a troubling shift in how weekend shifts for detention officers were assigned. Instead of being allocated based on seniority, the decision was made according to gender, with only male officers allowed to enjoy full weekends off. This sparked rightful concern and ultimately led the officers to take legal action against the sheriff’s department.

The settlement, approved on Tuesday after mediation following the appeals court ruling, marks a turning point. After deducting attorney fees and related expenses, plaintiffs Debbie Stoxstell and Felesia Hamilton received $176,789 each, the largest amounts among the group—a well-deserved reward for their courage and persistence.

A pivotal ruling in 2023 has changed the landscape for discrimination claims in the United States Fifth Circuit, which spans Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. As David Henderson, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, pointed out, this new direction aligns the Fifth Circuit with a broader, more favorable national approach to addressing employment discrimination.

Henderson shared the impact of this case: “Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.”

Adding to the conversation, Senior Sergeant Christopher J. Dyer of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Association, which champions fair treatment for sheriff’s department employees, clarified how the policy came to be. He noted that since the majority of their employees are female, and due to a shortage of male detention officers, a separate seniority system was created. Unfortunately, this led to a scenario where senior female officers could lose their weekend time off. A sergeant even mentioned that they believed it was safer for male officers to have weekends off compared to weekdays—an assertion that the affected women challenged, feeling their voices were overlooked as they raised concerns with management.

Consequently, the officers pursued legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on various protected traits, including gender. Although the district attorney’s office admitted in court filings that the policy was still in effect, they denied any claims of discrimination. The county argued that the scheduling changes were temporary and that assigning male guards was essential for certain roles involving male inmates, citing safety and privacy interests.

However, Dyer passionately argued that the rationale behind the policy simply didn’t hold water. “These ladies are working in housing, not in processing. The tasks they perform don’t significantly correlate with roles that require a male presence, such as those involved in intake or release.”

Race, Gender discrimination lawyer Helmer Friedman LLP.

Originally, a lower court dismissed the case in 2020 based on earlier legal precedents, with Judge David Godbey indicating the women had not experienced adverse employment actions. Initially, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported that view, but after a thorough en banc hearing, they revisited the case. In a groundbreaking decision, they ruled in 2023 that the policy was indeed a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The judges concluded that their previous definition of what constitutes an “adverse employment action” was too narrow, paving the way for broader interpretations that recognize discrimination based on altered terms and conditions of employment.

Dyer elaborated on the significant changes within the department, noting that leadership responsible for implementing the controversial time-off policy has since changed. He emphasized the importance of fair scheduling: “Whether or not someone has weekends off can greatly impact job satisfaction. Ultimately, no one’s work conditions should hinge on their gender.”

Very encouragingly, the recent settlement and official rulings will remain intact despite any changes in federal policy regarding workplace discrimination. This development not only compensates these courageous women for the challenges they faced but also sends a powerful message throughout industries everywhere. It encourages organizations to reassess potentially outdated policies and practices to foster a more equitable working environment.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing journey toward gender equality in the workplace. It highlights the necessity for continuous vigilance and advocacy for fairness, ensuring that future generations of employees thrive in an environment free from discrimination. With each progressive step, we get closer to a workplace where everyone is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Let’s keep the momentum going!

If you’ve experienced unfair treatment in your workplace due to discriminatory schedules, consult the attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation. With over 20 years of representation in employment law, we’re here to advocate for justice and ensure a better future for employees everywhere.

This post is based on reporting by Toluwani Osibamowo.

Posted on

$1.6 Million Payout in Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Battling sex discrimination to make our world more inclusive.

Security Engineers, Inc., a prominent security solutions provider based in Alabama, has been compelled to pay a staggering $1.6 million to settle a deeply concerning sex discrimination lawsuit. This lawsuit accused the company of fostering a pervasive culture of systemic sex discrimination throughout Alabama, revealing a troubling pattern of systematically denying women, including respected military veterans, access to security officer positions and vital assignments solely based on their gender.

Allegations surfaced that the company explicitly designated certain jobs as “male-only,” objecting to female applicants regardless of their exceptional qualifications and extensive experience. Disturbingly, an internal investigation revealed that the company’s human resources database contained explicit discriminatory directives, including alarming notes like: “DO NOT schedule a female for this post” and “Post is MALE ONLY!”

According to the lawsuit, these egregious practices have perpetually obstructed women’s rightful opportunities to excel in security roles, even when they possessed significant qualifications in fields such as security, law enforcement, or military service.

These actions are in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a pivotal federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.

The case, formally referred to as EEOC v. Security Engineers, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The resolution of this lawsuit not only mandates the hefty $1.6 million payout, which will be allocated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to the affected class of women who were unjustly denied security officer roles, but also enforces critical changes within the company.

Beyond the financial restitution, the settlement requires Security Engineers to permanently cease all forms of sex-based discrimination and explicitly forbids the company from accommodating any discriminatory requests from clients. Future hiring decisions will be mandated to be based solely on qualifications, devoid of any gender considerations, and all existing directives that suggest otherwise must be eradicated. The decree further stipulates comprehensive training, vigilant monitoring, and regular reporting to ensure enforcement and compliance.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the paramount importance of upholding federal employment laws and highlights the essential role of legal advocacy in combating discrimination. If you, a friend, or a family member suspect that you are experiencing sex discrimination in your workplace, it is vital to consult with an experienced sex discrimination attorney. The outcome of the Security Engineers, Inc. case underscores the legal protections available against such discriminatory practices and reinforces the critical need to stand resolutely against all forms of discrimination.

Posted on

$20,000 Sexual Harassment / Retaliation Case Settlement with Bojangles Restaurants, Inc

Sexual harassment causes long term damage to the victims psyche.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Settles Federal Charges Female Employee Was Sexually Harassed, Then Transferred and Denied Promotional Opportunity Because She Complained

Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating in Greensboro, North Carolina, has been ordered to pay $20,000.00 and provide other relief as part of a settlement agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit.

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a female team member at a Bojangles fast food restaurant in Greensboro was subjected to severe sexual harassment from March 2020 to June 2020 by the restaurant’s general manager, who made numerous sexual remarks and inappropriately touched and grabbed her. The employee was then denied the opportunity to participate in a management training program and was transferred to a different location as retaliation after complaining about the general manager’s conduct.

This type of alleged behavior is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace and prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose sexual harassment.


Employees have a right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers cannot tolerate such conduct or allow managers to retaliate against employees for reporting the harassment.

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., Civil Action No.: 1:22-cv-00739) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

As part of the two-year consent decree, which applies to specific restaurants, Bojangles is required to pay $20,000.00 in damages to the affected employee, train managers and employees on sexual harassment, refrain from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, including in the administration of management training programs, and refrain from retaliating against employees who complain of sexual harassment.

Bojangles has also agreed not to rehire the offending manager. “Employees have a right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace,” said Melinda C. Dugas, regional attorney for the Charlotte District. “Employers cannot tolerate such conduct or allow managers to retaliate against employees for reporting the harassment.”

Posted on

Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit Settles for $60,000

Burger King

Burger King Franchise to Pay $60,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit

Employer Allowed Abuse of Pregnant Employee and Fired Her After She Complained, Federal Agency Charged

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – North Georgia Foods, Inc., a Georgia-based company operating several Burger King restaurants, including one in Murphy, North Carolina, has agreed to pay $60,000 and provide other relief to settle a sex harassment, retaliation, and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, from at least August 2018 through approximately July 2019, a team member at North Georgia Foods’ Murphy, North Carolina location was sexually harassed by a male assistant manager. The harassment included vulgar sexual comments, threatening behavior, and unwelcome sexual touching. The team member complained multiple times and asked not to work alone with the male assistant manager. North Georgia Foods did not take action to stop the harassment but instead removed the team member from the schedule completely in June 2019. The company refused to communicate with the team member and later refused to reinstate her employment. The EEOC also alleged the team member was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which protects employees from sex-based harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. North Georgia Foods, Inc, d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 1:22-cv-00049) in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its voluntary conciliation process.

The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable.

The suit was resolved by a two-year consent decree that prohibits North Georgia Foods from discriminating and retaliating against employees in violation of Title VII.  North Georgia Foods must also prominently post a telephone number for an off-site reporting official, revise its written anti-discrimination policies, and train employees on the process for reporting complaints of discrimination and the requirements of Title VII, including its anti-retaliation provisions.

“The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Charlotte District is charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina.

More information is available about sexual harassment is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment .