Question 3

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when the harasser has the authority over the employee to change the employee's employment status.

Quid pro quo harassment refers to situations where a person in a position of authority offers job benefits in exchange for sexual favors or threatens adverse employment action if those favors are not provided.

A) Quid pro quo

This option is correct because quid pro quo harassment specifically involves a power dynamic where the harasser has the ability to affect the employment status of the victim. It is characterized by an offer or threat directly tied to the employee's job security or benefits.

B) Reverse discrimination

Reverse discrimination does not apply to the scenario described. It refers to situations where individuals from a historically advantaged group are discriminated against in favor of a historically disadvantaged group. It does not involve the authority of a harasser affecting an employee's job status.

C) Comparable worth

Comparable worth is a concept related to ensuring that jobs of equal value receive equal pay, regardless of the gender of the employee. This term does not relate to harassment or the authority to change employment status, making it an incorrect choice.

D) Anti-female animus

Anti-female animus refers to prejudice or hostility towards women, but it does not specifically address the power dynamics where one individual has the authority to alter another's employment status. Therefore, it is not the correct answer in this context.

Conclusion

Quid pro quo harassment is the only option that accurately describes a situation where a person in authority can influence an employee's job status, reflecting the specific nature of the harassment defined in the question. All other options fail to capture the essence of this power imbalance and its direct impact on employment conditions.