The two recognized forms are referred to as Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment (Aaron 64). Quid Pro involves an identified exchange of sexual concessions for employment benefits, or a threat that employment benefits will be withdrawn for refusal of sexual favors. A supervisor makes the sexual proposition to a subordinate. The employer is held strictly liable if proof of the supervisor's actions or utterances can be established, even if high management had no knowledge of the situation (Foy 56). Furthermore, Achampong defines Quid Pro as sexual harassment "that results in tangible economic loss or job detriment, such as firing, demotion, denial of a raise or promotion, constructive discharge, or retaliation- (29). In addition, in order to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that she is in a protected class, that she was subjected to unwelcome behavior based on sex, that her response led to adverse job consequences, and that the employer is liable for the harassment. Furthermore, she must be able to "overcome any alleged legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason the employer proffers to support the adverse job action- (Achampong 29).
On the other hand, a hostile environment is created when an employee is subjected sexually suggestive comments or conditions that are severe enough to alter the employee's conditions of employment. Achampong defines it as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment- (39). As we can see, this form of harassment is theoretically different from Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment in the sense that Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment involves tangible job detriment or economic loss, whereas hostile sexual harassment does not.
