Case Scenario
Soniya reports to Rahul. Both are currently working together on a presentation. Rahul frequently calls Soniya at odd hours, often suggesting that they meet outside of work for late-night dinners or movies. Although Soniya feels uncomfortable, she avoids confrontation and brushes it off with a smile.
However, on the day of the presentation, Rahul crosses a line. He threatens Soniya, saying that if she doesn’t go out with him, he will deny her contribution to the project. Though he delivers this with a smile, Soniya is deeply anxious. She knows that losing credit for her work will affect her promotion prospects.
This is a classic case of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Quid Pro Quo: the definition
“Quid pro quo” is a Latin phrase that literally means “this for that.”
Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, this term is used to describe a form of harassment where a job-related benefit or disadvantage is made conditional upon acceptance or rejection of sexual advances or behaviour.
Typically, such situations arise when the harasser holds a position of power or authority, for instance, a supervisor, manager, or senior colleague, who uses their influence to demand personal or sexual favours.
Practical Example
Consider a situation where a manager tells an employee:
“If you go out with me this weekend, I’ll make sure your performance review goes well.”
In this example, the manager is leveraging their authority to make a professional benefit contingent on a personal act. This is not a mutual exchange; it’s coercion disguised as choice.
The law clearly recognises this as sexual harassment. The act makes it clear that any form of sexual advance, demand for sexual favours, or behaviour with sexual overtones in exchange for a professional benefit or to avoid a professional penalty constitutes quid pro quo harassment.
Legal Context
According to Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act, sexual harassment includes unwelcome acts such as physical contact, advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or any other conduct of a sexual nature.
When such acts are tied to the promise or threat of a job-related consequence, such as promotion, raise, transfer, or termination, it squarely falls under quid pro quo harassment.
Employers are mandated to create safe working environments and ensure that such abuse of authority is addressed through the Internal Committee (IC), which has the power to investigate and recommend disciplinary action.
Conclusion
In Soniya’s case, Rahul’s behaviour constitutes quid pro quo sexual harassment. His actions are not merely inappropriate; they are a violation of law. The PoSH Act exists precisely to protect employees from such misuse of power and to ensure that professional growth is never conditional on compliance with personal demands.
Every employee has the right to dignity and equality at work, and every employer has the duty to uphold it.
Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc to and let us help you get your compliance check.