PEN2604
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Form of Sexual Harassment Depicted in the Case Study
The form of sexual harassment depicted in the case study is quid pro quo
sexual harassment. This type of harassment occurs when an individual in a
position of authority uses their power to solicit sexual favours in exchange for
tangible job benefits. In this case, Ms C, a supervisor at a correctional centre,
leverages her authority over Mr A by implying that his cooperation in a romantic
or sexual context may lead to a promotion.
There are several indicators in the case that support the identification of quid pro
quo harassment. Firstly, Ms C is in a position of power over Mr A, and her
behaviour includes flirtatious comments made in private, which make Mr A
uncomfortable. Although Mr A does not initially report the behaviour, his silence
does not imply consent. According to Naylor (2010:11), the hallmark of any
sexual harassment claim is that the behaviour is unwelcome, even if the
individual does not outwardly object.
The harassment escalates when Ms C invites Mr A to her home under the guise
of a work-related project. There, she prepares a romantic setting and makes
suggestive remarks directly linking sexual behaviour to job advancement,
stating he could be promoted if he "plays his cards right". This clearly meets the
three criteria outlined by Rubin (1995) for quid pro quo harassment:
1. The harassment is based on sex.
2. Mr A is subjected to unwelcome sexual advances.
3. There is a condition that his submission may lead to a tangible job
benefit (a promotion).
The romantic dinner and the suggestion of further intimacy blur professional
boundaries, which is inappropriate and exploitative in the correctional services
context. Furthermore, Naylor (2010:12) emphasizes that quid pro quo harassment
involves submission due to fear of losing job-related benefits. Mr A’s decision to
ignore Ms C’s initial behaviour suggests a fear of jeopardizing his employment or
future opportunities.
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
1.1 Form of Sexual Harassment Depicted in the Case Study
The form of sexual harassment depicted in the case study is quid pro quo
sexual harassment. This type of harassment occurs when an individual in a
position of authority uses their power to solicit sexual favours in exchange for
tangible job benefits. In this case, Ms C, a supervisor at a correctional centre,
leverages her authority over Mr A by implying that his cooperation in a romantic
or sexual context may lead to a promotion.
There are several indicators in the case that support the identification of quid pro
quo harassment. Firstly, Ms C is in a position of power over Mr A, and her
behaviour includes flirtatious comments made in private, which make Mr A
uncomfortable. Although Mr A does not initially report the behaviour, his silence
does not imply consent. According to Naylor (2010:11), the hallmark of any
sexual harassment claim is that the behaviour is unwelcome, even if the
individual does not outwardly object.
The harassment escalates when Ms C invites Mr A to her home under the guise
of a work-related project. There, she prepares a romantic setting and makes
suggestive remarks directly linking sexual behaviour to job advancement,
stating he could be promoted if he "plays his cards right". This clearly meets the
three criteria outlined by Rubin (1995) for quid pro quo harassment:
1. The harassment is based on sex.
2. Mr A is subjected to unwelcome sexual advances.
3. There is a condition that his submission may lead to a tangible job
benefit (a promotion).
The romantic dinner and the suggestion of further intimacy blur professional
boundaries, which is inappropriate and exploitative in the correctional services
context. Furthermore, Naylor (2010:12) emphasizes that quid pro quo harassment
involves submission due to fear of losing job-related benefits. Mr A’s decision to
ignore Ms C’s initial behaviour suggests a fear of jeopardizing his employment or
future opportunities.
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
