例句與造句

1. C . Plaintiff Is Required To Show A Tangible Job Detriment To Prove Quid Pro Quo Harassment.
2. Today's complaints are more likely to be based on hostile work environment, not quid pro quo harassment.
3. Plaintiff also wrongly asserts that she can establish quid pro quo harassment without proving that she suffered a tangible job detriment.
4. _Mrs . Jones was subjected to quid pro quo harassment by Mr . Clinton tying his sexual requests to her job.
5. The decisions broadened the definition of harassment beyond having a hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment _ which, for example, would include promising a raise in return for sexual favors.
6. It's difficult to find quid pro quo harassment in a sentence. 用quid pro quo harassment造句挺難的
7. "( A ) supervisor's mere threat or promise of job-related harm or benefits in exchange for sexual favors does not constitute quid pro quo harassment . . . ."
8. For example, a single threat can amount to quid pro quo harassment, but a hostile environment case typically requires multiple incidents to meet the court's test of " severe and pervasive " harassment.
9. Proceeding from the premise that an employer faces vicarious liability for quid pro quo harassment, the district court thought it necessary to apply a negligence standard because the quid pro quo merely contributed to the hostile work environment.
10. In one, often called quid pro quo harassment, the supervisor takes an adverse action _ like dismissal, failing to promote, reducing benefits or reassigning with significantly reduced responsibilities _ against an employee who refuses to submit to the supervisor's sexual demands.
11. In 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission followed MacKinnon's framework in adopting guidelines prohibiting sexual harassment by prohibiting both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment ( see 29 C . F . R . ?1604.11 ( a ) ).
12. The question of an unfulfilled threat is an issue in Mrs . Jones'appeal to the 8th U . S . Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in contrast to the 7th Circuit, requires proof of " tangible job detriment " for a plaintiff in a quid pro quo harassment case to win.
13. The law in the Eighth Circuit, however, is clear : ` ( ( t ) ) o make a prima facie case of quid pro quo harassment, ( ( plaintiff ) ) must show that . . . her refusal to submit ( ( to unwelcome advances ) ) resulted in a tangible job detriment .'Cram v . Lamson & AMP; Sessions Co ., 49 F . 3d 466, 473 ( 8th Cir . 1995 ) ( citations omitted ).