Do I have a sexual harassment case if my boss asks me to dress “sexier”?

Employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of sex. Asking you to dress in a provocative manner may involve both quid pro quo harassment and be part of creating a hostile environment. No employee should be put in a position that encourages people (whether other employees or visitors, vendors, customers, or salespeople) to make unwelcome sexual advances.

Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Quid pro quo, which literally means “this for that,” is a form of sexual harassment because it occurs when a job benefit is specifically conditioned on an employee performing an unwelcome or unwanted sexual act, or submitting to an unwelcome sexual advance of some kind.

If you were asked to “dress sexy” by your boss, and your job, a promotion, or some other job benefit depended on your fulfilling that, then the request would be an example of quid pro quo sexual harassment. You should pursue the legal avenues available to you as part of your response to this sort of sexual harassment, including contacting your company’s HR department, notifying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), etc.

Hostile Work Environment

Hostile work environment is different from quid pro quo sexual harassment. A court will only find a hostile work environment exists in situations where an employee was subjected to a pattern or series of unwanted sexual behaviors – often by people other than the employee’s direct boss. Were you asked to “dress sexy,” then complained to your boss, but then saw nothing was done to correct the situation? Did the situation even get worse over time? If so, this may be considered a hostile work environment and you may have a sexual harassment case against your boss.

Case Studies: Workplace Sexual Harassment

Case Study 1: Quid Pro Quo Harassment

Maria, a dedicated employee in a marketing firm, aspires to be promoted to a managerial position. Her boss, John, implies that dressing in a more provocative manner may improve her chances of getting the promotion.

Feeling uncomfortable and recognizing the inappropriate nature of the request, Maria consults with a trusted coworker who advises her to document the incident and seek legal counsel. She contacts an employment lawyer who guides her through the process.

With her lawyer’s assistance, Maria files a complaint with the company’s HR department and provides them with the evidence, including emails and witnesses. The HR department conducts an investigation and finds John guilty of quid pro quo sexual harassment.

As a result, John faces disciplinary action, and the company revises its policies and provides mandatory training on appropriate workplace behavior.

Case Study 2: Hostile Work Environment

Alex works in a construction company where he endures a hostile work environment. Several coworkers consistently make inappropriate comments, engage in lewd behavior, and create an uncomfortable atmosphere.

Alex confronts his immediate supervisor, but the situation remains unchanged. Frustrated and distressed, Alex seeks legal advice to understand his options.

With the assistance of an employment lawyer, Alex files a complaint with the company’s HR department, providing them with a detailed account of the incidents, witnesses’ statements, and any available evidence.

The HR department launches an investigation and discovers a pattern of persistent harassment.

The company takes disciplinary action against the offenders, provides sensitivity training for all employees, and ensures a safe and respectful work environment.

Case Study 3: Retaliation and Legal Recourse

Sarah, an employee at a healthcare facility, reports a sexual harassment incident involving her supervisor, Mike.

Following her complaint, Sarah experiences retaliatory actions, such as exclusion from team meetings and negative performance evaluations. Recognizing the unjust treatment, Sarah seeks legal representation to address the retaliation.

Sarah’s attorney files a complaint with the EEOC, citing both the initial sexual harassment incident and the subsequent retaliation. The EEOC conducts an investigation and finds merit in Sarah’s claims.

They issue a right-to-sue letter, empowering Sarah to pursue legal action. With her lawyer’s guidance, Sarah files a lawsuit against her employer, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation.

This proceeds to court, and the jury rules in Sarah’s favor, awarding her damages and sending a strong message about the importance of protecting employees from harassment and retaliation.