PrepSolution
PHRHigh-YieldEmployee and Labor Relations 20%
two types — both unlawful — different evidence

Sexual Harassment

2

Types

Quid Pro Quo + Hostile Environment

1

Standard

Severe OR pervasive

0

Single Incident

Can suffice if severe enough

two doctrines · two liability rules

The Liability Seesaw

QPQ tips the seesaw to strict liability — no defense available. Hostile environment leaves the seesaw balanced — Faragher/Ellerth defense may apply.

quid pro quo"this for that"vignette"Sleep with meand you get the promotion."tangible action by supervisor→ STRICT LIABILITYno Faragher/Ellerth defensehostile environmentsevere OR pervasivevignette"Daily sexual jokes— complaints ignored."no tangible action→ Faragher/Ellerth POSSIBLEif reasonable care + employee unreasonabletitle VII liability fulcrumMeritor v. Vinson · Faragher · Ellerth · Oncale · Bostockheavier · employer payslighter · defense possibleFaragher/Ellerth defense — both prongs required(a) employer exercised reasonable care to prevent + correct(b) employee unreasonably failed to use procedures

how to read this

  • › The seesaw tilts toward the side carrying liability weight. QPQ's side hits the ground — no defense.
  • › HE's side stays lifted IF the employer has a real policy AND the employee unreasonably failed to use it.
  • Single severe incident can land on either side depending on whether a tangible action followed.

The Cases That Built the Doctrine

1986

Meritor v. Vinson

Hostile environment IS sex discrimination

1998

Faragher / Ellerth

Affirmative defense framework for HE without tangible action

1998

Oncale v. Sundowner

Same-sex harassment is actionable

2020

Bostock v. Clayton County

SO + GI fall under sex discrimination

Exam Traps

Quid Pro Quo requires SUPERVISOR action

Coworkers cannot do quid pro quo because they cannot offer tangible employment actions. The exam tests this category.

Standard is "severe OR pervasive"

Not "severe AND pervasive." One severe incident or many lesser ones can both create a hostile environment.

Faragher/Ellerth defense unavailable with tangible action

When the supervisor takes a tangible employment action, employer is strictly liable. The defense exists only for hostile environment without tangible action.

Bostock confirmed SO and GI coverage

Same-sex harassment (Oncale, 1998) and SO/GI harassment (Bostock, 2020) are both actionable under Title VII.

Coworker QPQ does not exist

Quid pro quo is supervisor-only because only supervisors can offer tangible employment actions.

Severe OR pervasive

One severe incident OR many smaller ones. The standard is disjunctive, not conjunctive.

1
Quid Pro Quo

Manager tells server she gets the promotion if she goes on a date. She refuses. He gives the promotion to someone else. Tangible employment action. Strict employer liability.

2
Hostile Environment

Manager makes daily sexual jokes. Other servers join. Targeted server complains. Nothing happens. Employer can use Faragher/Ellerth defense ONLY if it had a real policy AND the server unreasonably failed to use it.

3
Single severe incident

Manager grabs a server inappropriately. One incident, but severe enough to alter conditions of employment. Hostile environment without a pattern.

4
Bystander harassment

Witnessing ongoing harassment of others can create hostile environment for the witness. Not just direct targets.

QPQ = tangible action = strict liability. HE = severe or pervasive = Faragher defense possible.
reading is not enough, you gotta practice

Ready to test your PHR knowledge?

1,700+ practice questions written by certified professionals.

Start Practicing PHR
Reviewed by Sarah L., PrepSolution Content Editor, HR
Sources verified against HRCI 2026 standards
Updated May 2026