Over the years I have been practicing law, I have noticed a gradual decrease in the type of egregious "quid pro quo" sexual harassment incidents that were commonplace years ago. Quid pro quo harassment is a somewhat outmoded legal concept whereby a manager offers rewards or threatens an employee whom they supervise in return for agreeing to engage in sexual activity.

There may be multiple reasons why these types of claims have diminished. The #MeToo movement focused attention on sexual exploitation in the workplace, perhaps deterring some potential perpetrators from engaging in this activity. Employer harassment training may have had some impact by advising managers of the consequences of this kind of behavior. Perhaps most importantly, many previously male-dominated workplaces and industries have seen an influx of female employees and executives, signaling a cultural change for even the most retrograde companies.

Even with these positive changes, once in a while we see claims that recall the worst kinds of alleged behavior from decades ago. Last week, a North Carolina home construction employer settled a federal lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that the company’s COO created a hostile and offensive work environment by subjecting its office manager to a series of questions and comments about her appearance and sexual preferences. The lawsuit alleged that the COO eventually gave the employee a "dominant/submissive" contract that specified the sexual behavior expected of her. When the employee failed to respond to or discuss the offer, she alleged that she was disciplined and eventually fired.

If a plaintiff proves these kinds of allegations, the company will be held legally liable whether or not it knew of the conduct and regardless of how quickly and decisively it responded once advised of this behavior. The main legal question becomes the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff. The only surprise about this settlement is that it took a public lawsuit by the EEOC for the employer to end the litigation.

Despite decades of training and publicity, there may be a small, irreducible percentage of employees who either do not care about the consequences of this behavior or who believe that the rules do not apply to them. Other than avoiding hiring these employees in the first place, employers caught in these situations may be reduced to damage control, trying to address the situation as quickly and directly as possible once they become aware of the allegations.

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.