Hawaii Jury Instruction - 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Adverse Employment Action
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-1-2-3
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Hawaii Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation is a legal concept that specifically addresses cases involving sex discrimination in employment settings. Quid pro quo, a Latin phrase meaning "something for something," refers to a situation where an individual suffers adverse employment consequences or gains advantageous treatment based on their response to unwelcome sexual advances or demands, typically from a person in a position of power. In Hawaii, there may be variations or different types of jury instructions related to sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Some possible variations may include: 1. "Direct Quid Pro Quo Violation": This instruction focuses on cases where an employee is directly offered or threatened with specific employment benefits, promotions, salary increases, or other advantages in exchange for fulfilling sexual requests or engaging in unwanted sexual acts. 2. "Implied Quid Pro Quo Violation": This instruction deals with cases where there might not be explicit demands or offers related to sexual favors in exchange for employment benefits, but the circumstances and actions of the parties involved implicitly indicate that such an arrangement exists. It may involve a situation where an employee's refusal to engage in a consensual romantic or sexual relationship with a superior results in adverse employment consequences. 3. "Hostile Work Environment Quid Pro Quo Violation": This variation of the instruction highlights cases where an individual experiences a pervasive and intimidating work environment due to unwelcome sexual advances or demands from a superior. Although it does not involve explicit requests for sexual favors in exchange for specific benefits, the hostile environment created may be seen as an indirect form of quid pro quo sexual discrimination. When litigating cases involving sex discrimination quid pro quo violations, it is vital for attorneys and jurors to carefully consider the specific circumstances, evidence, testimonies, and relevant laws in Hawaii. These instructions aim to guide the jury in understanding the nuances of these cases to ensure fair and just determinations are made.

Hawaii Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation is a legal concept that specifically addresses cases involving sex discrimination in employment settings. Quid pro quo, a Latin phrase meaning "something for something," refers to a situation where an individual suffers adverse employment consequences or gains advantageous treatment based on their response to unwelcome sexual advances or demands, typically from a person in a position of power. In Hawaii, there may be variations or different types of jury instructions related to sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Some possible variations may include: 1. "Direct Quid Pro Quo Violation": This instruction focuses on cases where an employee is directly offered or threatened with specific employment benefits, promotions, salary increases, or other advantages in exchange for fulfilling sexual requests or engaging in unwanted sexual acts. 2. "Implied Quid Pro Quo Violation": This instruction deals with cases where there might not be explicit demands or offers related to sexual favors in exchange for employment benefits, but the circumstances and actions of the parties involved implicitly indicate that such an arrangement exists. It may involve a situation where an employee's refusal to engage in a consensual romantic or sexual relationship with a superior results in adverse employment consequences. 3. "Hostile Work Environment Quid Pro Quo Violation": This variation of the instruction highlights cases where an individual experiences a pervasive and intimidating work environment due to unwelcome sexual advances or demands from a superior. Although it does not involve explicit requests for sexual favors in exchange for specific benefits, the hostile environment created may be seen as an indirect form of quid pro quo sexual discrimination. When litigating cases involving sex discrimination quid pro quo violations, it is vital for attorneys and jurors to carefully consider the specific circumstances, evidence, testimonies, and relevant laws in Hawaii. These instructions aim to guide the jury in understanding the nuances of these cases to ensure fair and just determinations are made.