Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

she had put forth sufficient evidence showing that the hugs were a pattern of conduct, based on gender, and were subjectively and objectively offensive, and had affected her work. The Court also emphasized that as a supervisor and the highest-ranking officer in the department, Sheriff Prieto’s actions had a potentially greater impact on subordinates which could be construed as abuse.

A 2016 workplace survey found that dating others from work is widespread. Approximately 51% of employees reported that they dated a coworker at least once during the course of their career. Of the employees surveyed, 23% said that they dated a subordinate and 16% said they had dated a supervisor. Nearly a third of employees believed that a colleague had gained a professional advantage by dating a co-worker or supervisor. 102 Employers can respond by maintaining appropriate standards of non- sexual conduct in the workplace. Employees should also train employees about the potential individual liability that can result from workplace romances.

LCW Practice Advisor

Employers may be liable for harassment committed against their workers by clients, customers, vendors, and other third parties if the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the harassment. 103 Thus, it is up to the agency and its supervisors to ensure that nobody in the work environment engages in harassing conduct, including customers and other non-employees. 104 B. Q UID P RO Q UO “Quid pro quo” is the other type of harassment. “Quid pro quo” is Latin for “this for that.” In the context of sexual harassment, quid pro quo harassment occurs when submission to sexual conduct is explicitly or implicitly made a condition of a job, a job benefit, or the absence of a job detriment. 105 Thus, the accused harasser must be in a position to affect the accuser’s employment (e.g., a supervisor). This form of harassment can include sexual propositions, unwarranted graphic discussion of sexual acts, or commentary on the employee’s body. 106 Implicit conditioning of job benefits on submission to sexual conduct is more common but harder to detect than explicit quid pro quo harassment. The factors to evaluate in determining whether quid pro quo harassment has occurred are:  Whether a reasonable person in the accuser’s position, who is the same gender as the accuser and has the same fundamental characteristics as the accuser, would have believed they were the subject of quid pro quo harassment;  Whether the accused harasser intended to subject the accuser to quid pro quo harassment; and  Whether the sexual conduct was unwelcome;

Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 23