
By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction:
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act was enacted in India to safeguard women against sexual harassment in the workplace, ensure the prevention of such incidents and provide a mechanism for the redressal of complaints related to sexual harassment, along with addressing associated matters.
The POSH Act draws its foundation from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) which emphasized the need to ensure a safe working environment for women.
Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment: Meaning
One of the key forms of sexual harassment recognized under the POSH law is ‘Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment’ which violates the core principles of workplace ethics and dignity.
The term quid pro quo is derived from Latin meaning “this for that” and it implies that there is an exchange taking place. In the context of sexual harassment, quid pro quo refers to scenarios where an individual in a position of authority or power seeks sexual favors in exchange for employment related benefits (such as pay rise, promotion, increment or job security, etc.). Conversely, non-compliance with such demands may result in adverse actions, including termination, demotion, transfer or negative appraisals, etc.
Legal Framework under the POSH Act
The term ‘sexual harassment’ has been defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act which includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:
- Physical contact and advances; or
- A demand or request for sexual favours; or
- Making sexually coloured remarks; or
- Showing pornography; or
- Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature
While, section 3 of the POSH Act has laid out some circumstances, if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment:
- implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or
- implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or
- implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or
- interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
- humiliating treatment is likely to affect her health or safety.
Key Features
- Power Dynamics: The key element of it is it involves an abuse of power dynamics, where the perpetrator is generally in a position of higher authority (such as a manager or a team lead or a supervisor) over the victim and leverages its position to seek sexual favours.
- Exchange or Threat: Sexual harassment may not always involve overt requests but can manifest as subtle threats or implied propositions. For instance, sexual favours are demanded in exchange for employment benefits such as pay rise, job opportunities, etc. or refusal results in punitive actions such as demotion/termination etc.
- Unwelcome: The behavior or demand must be unsolicited and non-consensual.
Instances of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment at Workplace
- A manager promising a promotion or higher pay-rise in exchange for sexual favours.
For instance, a manager tells his subordinate, “If you agree to meet him outside office hours for dinner, I might consider you for the upcoming assignment”
This is a classic example of a quid pro quo sexual harassment where the manager is abusing its position to seek sexual favours, thereby creating a hostile working environment for employee.
- A senior team-lead threatens to transfer or terminate or demote his junior in case she refuses his sexual advances: Such situations makes the employee feel coerced to comply out of fear of being fired.
- Discriminatory acts or behavior after rejecting inappropriate requests: The employee in such situations feels trapped between complying and risking her career advancement
Legal Stance
Quid Pro Quo as a form of sexual harassment was recognized for the first time in the United States in the case of Williams v. Saxbe (1976) by the US District Court of Columbia[1]. In this case, the court held that sexual advances linked to employment benefits or threats constituted discrimination based on sex, thereby violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Further, the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson Case (1986) solidified the legal framework for sexual harassment wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized two categories of sexual harassment- quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile working environment.[2]
Indian courts too have addressed quid pro quo sexual harassment through various ruling, shaping its interpretation and enforcement under the POSH Act. In India, the recognition of quid pro quo sexual harassment came through the landmark case Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court defines sexual harassment broadly, including quid pro quo sexual harassment and issued the guidelines mandating employers to prevent and address such behavior at workplaces. These guidelines eventually culminated in the enactment of the POSH Act.
In the case of M/S. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal & Another on 25 November, 1998[3], the respondent, an ex-employee, alleged that her supervisor persistently pressured her to join him for lunches and dinners, which she declined, Following this, the supervisor made indecent and objectionable remarks, and when she protested, he retaliated by harassing her further. Despite her attempts to raise the issue with higher authorities, she was terminated on baseless grounds. The First Labor Court analyzed the facts and circumstances carefully and concluded that the respondent was victimized for refusing her superior’s sexual demands. This was upheld by the Bombay High Court stating that the supervisor’s actions constituted sexual harassment, aligning with the definition given by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan.
The Tezpur University and Ors. vs. C.S.H.N. Murthy (2016)[4] case highlights the complex and sensitive issues surrounding power dynamics in educational institutions wherein a student lodged a complaint against a Professor, alleging that he had made an implicit proposal to her offering to give good grade and help her in her dissertation, which seemed to be sexual in nature. This is one of the cases that sheds light on the often-underreported reality of quid pro quo sexual harassment where individuals in positions of authority misuse their power and designation to exploit others.
Conclusion:
Among the various forms of sexual harassment addressed by the Act, quid pro quo is one of the most critical yet often misunderstood forms. Therefore, to prevent such forms of harassment, organizations must conduct regular training and sensitization sessions for employees, including those in supervisory roles.
By fostering awareness, strengthening organizational policies and ensuring diligent implementation of the POSH Act, workplaces can create a safer, more inclusive environment for all.
Srishti Saxena, Assessment Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritor_Savings_Bank_v._Vinson