| |
| | Joel Israel, Quid Without A Quo: Harassment Law Changes Its Terminology Without Changing Its Meaning, 10 Duke J. of ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-08) |
 | | In the context of a refusal case, the substance of the claim is that a tangible job benefit or detriment was conditioned on the employee submitting to the supervisor's sexual flmail and that adverse consequences followed from her refusal to submit. |
 | | The quid pro quo proposition is still important evidence, just as it is in an adverse job action case; indeed, the quid pro quo submission case with its express threat of retaliation will often prove stronger than many environmental harassment claims. |
 | | Additionally, because quid pro quo refers to both retaliation and submission cases, the term is overly broad, as it does not specify whether there was a threat or promise, a submission or resistance, whether a job was gained or lost, or if the damages were economic or emotional. |
| www.law.duke.edu /journals/djglp/articles/gen10p247.htm (11281 words) |
|