Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Repeatedly “Suggesting” That an Employee Date a Client: That Can Be Sexual Harassment

Written on .



A recent unpublished decision out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses the issue of whether a manager's conditioning of employment benefits on a subordinate employee's giving sexual favors to a third party, such as a client, constitutes quid pro quo sexual harassment. (Davenport v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 5th Cir., No. 17-30388, unpublished 5/16/18). The Fifth Circuit said that it does.

Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor or manager conditions a job benefit or detriment on a worker performing sexual favors. At issue in the Davenport case was whether the requesting supervisor or manager must be the intended recipient of those favors. The plaintiff, Davenport, alleged that her supervisor interfered with her receipt of a bonus and made her work environment so intolerable she was forced to quit after she refused his attempts to get her to date a wealthy prospective customer.

The court rejected the company's argument that a worker must show that a supervisor was the intended recipient of the proposed sexual favors to establish quid pro quo harassment. The Court stated that because the supervisor made the requests, he engaged in the sexual harassment, and it is of no consequence that a third-party was to be the beneficiary.

I will note that the plaintiff may have won the battle on the appropriate standard for quid pro sexual harassment, but she ultimately lost the war; her case was dismissed for various reasons, including her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies because she did not include some of her allegations in her EEOC Charge.

Pro tip: It is never a good idea for a supervisor or manager to discuss a subordinate employee's dating life, and that includes making "suggestions" about who they should date. It is an even worse idea to "suggest" that the subordinate employee would benefit from dating the superior or a customer or client. An employer can be held strictly liable for this kind of sexual harassment.

Kathleen J. Jennings
Former Principal

Kathleen J. Jennings is a former principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. She defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

airport, fence
On Friday the United States Supreme Court lifted the stay that prevented the federal government from removing people who have parole status…
venezuelan flag
The Trump Administration’s immigration actions have created confusion and frustration for employers who are trying to maintain a legal and…
a painted of a different looking people
In the Guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) released March 19, 2025, the go…
seating, indoors, government building
Occasionally, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, or those from other state and local agencies, come to an employer’s facil…
irst woman jury, Los Angeles
Fairness is a fundamental human instinct.  For example, whatever the rights and wrongs of an employee’s firing, the manner in which the emp…
person reading newspaper on bench outside
Although the list of current issues that are relatively new and critical affecting employment decisions could get quite lengthy, this autho…