About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


13 Law & Ineq. 213 (1994-1995)
Sexual Extortion: Criminalizing Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

handle is hein.journals/lieq13 and id is 219 raw text is: Sexual Extortion: Criminalizing Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Carrie N. Baker* Introduction Imagine this scenario: a woman applies for a job at a car deal- ership. The interviewer tells her that the job is hers if she will have oral sex with him. She refuses and he denies her the job. Last year, in response to such an occurrence in Georgia, Representative Jim Martin introduced a bill before the Georgia Legislature which, among other things, would have created a new felony: A person commits the offense of solicitation of sex when such person... solic- its a subordinate employee or job applicant to perform or submit to sexual intercourse or to an act involving the sex organs of one per- son and the mouth or anus of another as a condition of employ- ment.' In a civil law context, courts have for over a decade2 called this proposed crime quid pro quo sexual harassment. Courts distinguish two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment.3 In the workplace, quid pro quo sex- ual harassment occurs when submission to sexual conduct is made a term or condition of an individual's employment or when an indi- vidual's submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting that individual.4 Hostile environment sexual harassment is conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work per- * Judicial Clerk, Judge Marvin H. Shoob, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia. B.A., Yale University, 1987; J.D., MA., Emory University, 1994. For their comments on earlier drafts, the author would like to thank Deborah Young, Jennifer Brown, Mary Radford, Marc Miller, Margaret Chriss, Harvey Hill, and Ann Beeson. 1. Telephone interview with Jim Martin, Rep., (D. Atlanta) General Assembly of Georgia (May 24, 1994). H.B. 666, 1993 General Assembly of Georgia. The bill provided that the offense of solicitation of sex would be punishable by a fine of be- tween $1,000 and $5,000 and/or incarceration for one to five years. Id.; See generally Ellen Whitford, Sex Crimes Bill Redefining Rape Is in for a Fight, ATLANTA CONST., Feb. 11, 1993, at F1 & F6. This bill did not pass. 2. Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 897 (1st Cir. 1988). 3. The Supreme Court first recognized this distinction in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). See infra part I.A. 4. Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 897; see also ARTwmR LARSON & LEx K LARSON, 1 EM- PLOyMENT DiSCRMINATION § 41A.42 (1993).