A Better Understanding of Hostile Environment Helps to Steer Clear of Its Liabilities
Conduct that amounts to quid pro quo sexual harassment and its potentially devastating liabilities are readily understood by most of our clients as conduct that is generally not inadvertent. They understand it as a forbidden bargain: employment for a sexual relationship.
Conduct that creates a “hostile work environment,” however, might require a more active managerial approach to steer clear of liabilities that can be just as devastating.
With that in mind, I recommend a post by Daniel A. Schwartz in the Connecticut Employment Law Blog discussing a recent Connecticut Appellate Court case in which the Court distinguishes and explains the difference between quid pro quo and “hostile work environment” sexual harassment (“Appellate Court Outlines Differences Again Between Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Work Environment Harassment”).
The case, Griffin v. Yankee Silversmith, Ltd, is well summarized, discussed and available in full on the CT Employment Law post. I will not attempt to duplicate all that on this post.
I will note parenthetically, however, that the case involved a lawsuit against a business with one owner-shareholder, demonstrating that the issues under discussion are relevant to the broader business community and not only to “big business.”
The case under discussion technically turned on a pleading issue that might be instructive only to lawyers: whether or not quid pro quo harassment was complained of in the actual Complaint. However, the Court’s opinion and the CT Employment Law post will be helpful to both attorneys and managers who could use a better understanding of the distinction between the two types of sexual harassment, and that would be most of us.
Thanks for the shoutout. As another blogger has now mentioned, quid pro quo harassment just doesn't happen that much anymore, but unfortunately the hostile work environment still persists....