Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor demands sexual favors from a subordinate in exchange for job security. Which option correctly describes this?

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor demands sexual favors from a subordinate in exchange for job security. Which option correctly describes this?

• A. When a supervisor demands sexual favors from a subordinate in exchange for job security.
• B. When coworkers tease each other about appearance.
• C. When there is no harassment at all.
• D. When harassment is unrelated to employment.

Answer: (A)

Quid pro quo harassment is when someone in a position of power uses their authority to demand sexual favors in exchange for a job-related benefit, such as job security or continued employment. In the example, the supervisor tying job security to sexual favors clearly shows this coercive dynamic: a job outcome is conditioned on sexual conduct, leveraging the supervisor’s control over the subordinate’s employment. That clear link between authority, coercion, and a workplace benefit is what makes this the correct description. The other scenarios don’t capture this exact dynamic. Teasing about appearance by coworkers is harassment, but it lacks the explicit employment-related exchange and power imbalance with a supervisor. Saying there is no harassment contradicts the premise, and harassment unrelated to employment describes hostile behavior that isn’t tied to job conditions, which is a different situation from quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo harassment is when someone in a position of power uses their authority to demand sexual favors in exchange for a job-related benefit, such as job security or continued employment. In the example, the supervisor tying job security to sexual favors clearly shows this coercive dynamic: a job outcome is conditioned on sexual conduct, leveraging the supervisor’s control over the subordinate’s employment. That clear link between authority, coercion, and a workplace benefit is what makes this the correct description.

The other scenarios don’t capture this exact dynamic. Teasing about appearance by coworkers is harassment, but it lacks the explicit employment-related exchange and power imbalance with a supervisor. Saying there is no harassment contradicts the premise, and harassment unrelated to employment describes hostile behavior that isn’t tied to job conditions, which is a different situation from quid pro quo.