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A recent unpublished decision out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses the issue of whether a manager's conditioning of employment benefits on a subordinate employee's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 (Davenport v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 5th Cir., No. 17-30388, unpublished 5/16/18).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

promo graphic, Navigating the New Legal Minefield of Automated HR
Artificial Intelligence is changing how businesses hire, manage, and evaluate employees—but it is also creating a new frontier for employme…
stopwatch
In FLSA Opinion Letter 2026-1, the Department of Labor (DOL) addressed whether an employer may reclassify an exempt worker from salaried ex…
gavel, courtroom
In a recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the court stated that hostile remarks about other minorities could…
paper books
On January 22, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to rescind its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the…
round table
Reports indicate that the new Chief Executive Officer of Walmart, John Furner, in his first company-wide memo since taking over, said he ha…
handshake
When employers attempt to settle disputes involving employment, the circumstances vary greatly as to the formality.  Most employers will no…