Sexual harassment has deterred many women from reaching greater heights in the corporate world. In a bid to advocate for equal treatment of women and men in the workplace, policies such as affirmative action have been implemented in the United States, and analogues policies have been adopted in the global platform. Several researchers have explored the subject in depth. One such researcher is Lynn T. Dickson. Dickson (1995), in the article entitled “Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment” A New Standard,” asserts that there are two forms of sexual harassment in the workplace. The first is quid pro quo, which refers to a scenario whereby hiring, firing, and promotion decisions are based on an employee’s willingness to offer sexual favors. The other form of sexual harassment addressed in the article is hostile treatment of an employee on the basis of gender difference. Although both forms of sexual harassment are equally prevalent, Dickson (1995) focuses on quid pro quo sexual harassment. Dickson posits that the determination of whether a benefit in the workplace was conditioned on sex is crucial in solving cases of quid pro quo sexual harassment. The illegality of quid pro quo is approached from two facets, sex as an implied condition and tangible harm. The article affirms that if sex is implied as a condition for promotion and hiring, then a legal action can be invoked. In determining whether quid pro quo sexual harassment transpired, the judicial system also focuses on tangible or economic harm sustained by the victim. Typically the article explores the precedence set by the Supreme Court in dealing with cases of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Therefore, the article contributed vastly to the more recent body of research.
As highlighted by the article, sexual harassment is still a common problem in the modern-day workplace. Human resource departments are striving to eradicate this unjust treatment of employees or prospective employees because the ramifications of the practice go beyond the performance of an employee. For instance, an employee may yield to the pressure of having sex to clinch a promotion that would warrant financial sustainability. Furthermore, in the current society, unemployment is still a problem (Keplinger, et al. 2019). Coupling unemployment with the rising cost of living makes it difficult for people without jobs to earn a livelihood. In the struggle to lead a better life despite the absence of a dependable source of income, job seeker may become desperate for employment, which makes them vulnerable to recruiters that perpetrate quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Quid pro quo sexual harassment is mostly prevalent in human resource settings where vital decisions pertaining to hiring, promoting, and firing are made by one person or a small group of individuals. The predisposition of vulnerable job and promotion seeker to this type of sexual harassment can be addressed by ensuring hiring, firing, and promotion decisions are made by a group of professional. The group must be sexually diverse and thorough background checks should be undertaken to ensure individual that are included in the such committees do not have prior or cases awaiting investigation on sexual harassment (Keplinger, et al. 2019). Also, hiring procedure must be thoroughly scrutinized to eliminate clauses or provisions that can be exploited by persons intending to take advantage of workers.
In conclusion, the article was not only informative but also relevant, in spite of being published in 1995. Firstly, the article clearly explains the difference between quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Secondly, measures to test quid pro quo sexual harassment are clearly outlined. Finally, the article explores court cases to demystify flaws in the current testing procedures as a means to fortify loopholes in the judicial system in regard to dealing with quid pro quo sexual harassment cases. Wholesomely, the source affirms the direction that should be taken in addressing quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace.
References
Dickinson, L. T. (1995). Quid pro quo sexual harassment: A new standard. Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. , 2 , 107.
Keplinger, K., Johnson, S. K., Kirk, J. F., & Barnes, L. Y. (2019). Women at work: Changes in sexual harassment between September 2016 and September 2018. PloS one , 14 (7).
