Editing Quid pro quo (section)

=== United States ===
In the United States, if an exchange appears excessively one sided, courts in some jurisdictions may question whether a ''quid pro quo'' did actually exist and the contract may be held [[void (law)|void]]. In cases of "quid pro quo" business contracts, the term takes on a negative connotation because major corporations may cross ethical boundaries in order to enter into these very valuable, mutually beneficial, agreements with other major big businesses. In these deals, large sums of money are often at play and can consequently lead to  promises of exclusive partnerships indefinitely or promises of distortion of economic reports.<ref>{{cite web |title=Do You Know What Quid Pro Quo Means? |url=http://abalawinfo.org/know-quid-pro-quo-means/ |website=ABA Law Info |access-date=11 October 2021 |date=8 June 2017}}</ref><ref>For example, {{Cite book|chapter=2–302 Unconsciable contract or term|title=Uniform Commercial Code|chapter-url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-302|access-date=15 February 2014|year=2003|publisher=[[Cornell University]]|title-link=Uniform Commercial Code}}</ref>

In the U.S., [[Lobbying|lobbyists]] are legally entitled to support candidates that hold positions with which the donors agree, or which will benefit the donors. Such conduct becomes [[bribery]] only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term ''quid pro quo'' denotes such an exchange.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/the-differences-between-bribery-and-lobbying.aspx|title=The Differences Between Bribery And Lobbying|last=Sahajwani|first=Manish|website=Investopedia|language=en|access-date=2019-11-04}}</ref>

In terms of criminal law, ''quid pro quo'' tends to get used as a euphemism for crimes such as [[extortion]] and [[bribery]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Norris |first=Mary |date=2019-11-25 |title=A Quid-Pro-Quo Mystery |url=https://www.newyorker.com/culture/comma-queen/a-quid-pro-quo-mystery |access-date=2024-05-06 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref>

==== Sexual harassment ====
In [[United States labor law]], workplace sexual harassment can take two forms; either "quid pro quo" harassment or [[hostile work environment]] harassment.<ref>{{cite web|title=What do I need to know about... Workplace Harassment|url=http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-workplace-harassment.htm|website=United States Department of Labor|access-date=26 April 2016|archive-date=23 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160423224444/http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-workplace-harassment.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>  "Quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. Only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, etc.), can commit "quid pro quo" harassment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-556|title=Vance v. Ball State|website=Oyez, ITT Chicago-Kent School of Law|access-date=9 February 2019}}</ref> The supervising harasser must have "immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee."<ref>{{cite web|title=Faragher v. City of Boca Raton|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-282.ZO.html|website=Cornell University Legal information Institute|access-date=27 April 2016}}</ref> The power dynamic between a supervisor and subordinate/job candidate is such that a supervisor could use their position of authority to extract sexual relations based on the subordinate/job candidate's need for employment. Co-workers and non-decision making supervisors cannot engage in "quid pro quo" harassment with other employees, but an employer could potentially be liable for the behavior of these employees under a hostile work environment claim.  The harassing employee's status as a supervisor is significant because if the individual is found to be a supervisor then the employing company can be held [[vicariously liable]] for the actions of that supervisor.<ref>{{cite work|title=Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth|work=Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech}}</ref>  Under [[Agency law]], the employer is held responsible for the actions of the supervisor because they were in a position of power within the company at the time of the harassment.

To establish a [[prima facie]] case of "quid pro quo" harassment, the plaintiff must prove that they were subjected to "unwelcome sexual conduct", that submission to such conduct was explicitly or implicitly a term of their employment, and submission to or rejection of this conduct was used as a basis for an employment decision,<ref>{{cite web|title=29 CFR 1604.11 – Sexual harassment.|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11|website=Cornell Legal Information Institute|access-date=26 April 2016}}</ref> as follows:

* Unwelcome Sexual Conduct: a court will look at the employee's conduct to determine whether the supervisor's sexual advances were unwelcome.  In [[Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson]], the Court opined that voluntary sex between an employee and supervisor does not establish proof that a supervisor's sexual advances were welcome. The Court also stated that evidence of the subordinate employee's provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies can be introduced as evidence if relevant.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson
|vol = 477
|reporter = U.S.
|opinion = 57, 69, 106
|pinpoint=
|court=
|date = 1986
|url = https://casetext.com/case/meritor-savings-bank-fsb-v-vinson
|access-date=
|quote=
}}</ref><!-- ORIGINAL CITE, PLEASE CHECK (IANAL): "{{cite web|title=Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 69, 106 (1986.)" -->{{vs|date=November 2019}}
* Term of Employment: a term or condition of employment means that the subordinate/job candidate must acquiesce to the sexual advances of the supervisor in order to maintain/be hired for the job. In essence, the sexual harassment becomes a part of their job. For example, a supervisor promises an employee a raise if they go out on a date with the supervisor, or tells an employee they will be fired if the employee doesn't sleep with them.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|title=Sexual Harassment: What is quid pro quo harassment?|url=http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_issues_for_consumers/sexualharassment_quidproquo.html|website=ABA: American Bar Association|access-date=27 April 2016}}</ref>
* Tangible Employment Action: a tangible employment action must take place as a result of the employee's submission or refusal of supervisor's advances. In [[Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth]], the Court stated that tangible employment action amounted to  "a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits."  It is important to note that only supervisors can make tangible employment actions, since they have the company's authority to do so. The Court also held that unfulfilled threats by a supervisor of an adverse employment decision are not sufficient to establish a "Quid pro quo," but were relevant for the purposes of a [[hostile work environment]] claim.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/524/742.html|title=Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 754 (1998).}}</ref> Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that [[constructive dismissal]] can count as a tangible employment action (thus allowing a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim) if the actions taken by a supervisor created a situation where a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign."<ref name=":1">{{cite web|title=Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-95|website=Oyez. ITT Chicago-Kent School of Law|access-date=27 April 2016}}</ref>

Once the plaintiff has established these three factors, the employer can not assert an affirmative defense (such as the employer had a sexual harassment policy in place to prevent and properly respond to issues of sexual harassment), but can only dispute whether the unwelcome conduct did not in fact take place, the employee was not a supervisor, and that there was no tangible employment action involved.

Although these terms are popular among lawyers and scholars, neither "hostile work environment" nor "quid pro quo" are found in [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]], which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and religion.  The Supreme Court noted in [[Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth]] that these terms are useful in differentiating between cases where threats of harassment are "carried out and those where they are not or absent altogether," but otherwise these terms serve a limited purpose.<ref name=":2">{{cite web|title=Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-569.ZO.html|website=Cornell University Legal Information Institute|access-date=27 April 2016}}</ref>  Therefore, sexual harassment can take place by a supervisor, and an employer can be potentially liable, even if that supervisor's behavior does not fall within the criteria of a "Quid pro quo" harassment claim.

==== Donald Trump impeachment inquiry ====
{{Main|Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump|Trump–Ukraine scandal|There was no quid pro quo}}
''Quid pro quo'' was frequently mentioned during the first [[Impeachment inquiry in the United States|impeachment inquiry]] into U.S. president [[Donald Trump]], in reference to the charge that his request for an investigation of [[Hunter Biden]] was a precondition for the delivery of congressionally authorized military aid during a call with Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/top-white-house-official-told-congress-there-was-no-doubt-trump-sought-quid-pro-quo-with-ukrainians/2019/11/08/c4ff269a-023c-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html|title=Top White House official told Congress 'there was no doubt' Trump sought quid pro quo with Ukrainians|last1=Harris|first1=Shane|date=2019-11-08|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=2019-11-10|last2=DeBonnis|first2=Mike|last3=Viebeck|first3=Elise|last4=Kranish|first4=Michael}}</ref>