The Department of Justice did not respond to e-mails requesting an official definition of the « quid pro quo. » The term quid pro quo is also used with respect to sexual harassment. Federal courts recognize two different types of sexual harassment: hostile sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual harassment that prod pro quo. Once a victim has demonstrated that she is being harassed against the case, the burden of proof rests with the employer to prove it. To do so, they will have to prove that their actions (such as the dismissal of an employee or the refusal of a raise by someone) were done for legitimate reasons. In the financial financecorporate certificate, we offer, through our online course offer, several Corporate Finance certifications for careers in investment banking, Equity Research, FP-A, accounting. A counter-return is a reciprocal agreement between the parties, which each member of the party takes into account in exchange for the goods or services they have benefited from. It is akin to an exchange in which a company puts the services of another company into service in exchange for that company`s products. The literal meaning of « Quid Pro Quo » in Latin is « something for something. » This type of agreement focuses on the same value of the goods or services offered by each party to the other party. Quid pro quo, a Latin term meaning « something for something » or « this for that » — refers to an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to offer a good or service to the other party in exchange or something valuable. Although these terms are popular with lawyers and scholars, neither « hostile work environment » nor « quid pro quo » appear in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, skin colour, national origin and religion.
In Burlington Industries, Inc. Ellerth, the Supreme Court stated that these terms are useful in distinguishing cases where threats of harassment are « made and those in which they are not or totally absent, » but otherwise those terms serve a limited purpose.  It is therefore important to remember that sexual harassment can be committed by a line manager and that an employer may potentially be held responsible, even if the conduct of that supervisor does not fall within the « Quid pro quo » harassment allegation criteria. In U.S. labour law, sexual harassment in the workplace can take two forms; or « Quid pro quo » harassment or harassment hostile to the work environment.  Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a superior requires sexual intercourse, sexual favours or sexual contact with a job applicant as a condition for his or her employment. Only superiors empowered to take concrete measures for employment (i.e. rent, fire, promotion, etc.) can commit « quid pro quo » harassment.  The harasse must have « direct (or progressively superior) powers over the employee. »  The power dynamic between a superior and a subordinate/professional candidate is such that a superior can use his or her position of authority to extract sexual relations on the basis of the employment needs of the candidate who abandoned him. Employees and superiors who are not decision makers may not participate in quid pro quo harassment with other workers, but an employer could be held responsible for the behaviour of these employees in a hostile work environment. The status of the harassing employee`s chief is important because if it is established that the person is a supervisor, the company employed may be held responsible for the actions of that superior.
 Under agency law, the employer is held responsible for the acts of surveillance because they were in a position of power at the time of the harassment within the company.