Oregon 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. Oregon Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation: In Oregon, there are specific jury instructions provided to guide the jurors in cases involving sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Quid pro quo, which translates to "this for that," refers to a type of sexual harassment where employment benefits or opportunities are conditioned upon the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation serves as a framework for evaluating such cases and determining liability. It outlines the necessary elements that the plaintiff must prove to establish a claim of sex discrimination quid pro quo violation. These elements may include: 1. Employer-Employee Relationship: The plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties involved. 2. Unwelcome Sexual Advances: The plaintiff must establish that the alleged harasser made unwanted sexual advances or engaged in sexual conduct, either explicitly or implicitly. 3. Conditioned Benefits or Opportunities: It must be shown that the harasser made the acceptance of job benefits, promotions, or other favorable treatment contingent upon the plaintiff's compliance with the sexual advances. This could involve threats of adverse employment actions, such as demotion or termination, if the advances were rejected. 4. Knowledge of the Harassment: The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the ongoing sexual harassment or could reasonably have known about it. 5. Tangible Employment Action: The plaintiff may provide evidence of a tangible employment action taken against them, such as being fired, demoted, or denied a promotion, directly resulting from their rejection or acceptance of the sexual advances. Different Types of Oregon Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation: While the general framework remains the same, there may be different subtypes of sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Some of these may include: 1. Single Incident Quid Pro Quo Violation: This refers to cases where there is a clear instance of sexual harassment involving a single explicit or implicit demand in exchange for job benefits or opportunities. 2. Ongoing Quid Pro Quo Violation: These cases involve a pattern of sexual harassment over an extended period, where the harasser consistently conditions employment benefits on the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. 3. Supervisor-Supervisee Quid Pro Quo Violation: In situations where a supervisor abuses their position of authority to exchange job benefits for sexual favors from their subordinate, this subtype of quid pro quo violation may apply. It is crucial for jurors to carefully consider the evidence presented and evaluate it against the specific jury instruction pertaining to the sex discrimination quid pro quo violation they are faced with. Each case will have unique circumstances, and the jury's role is to impartially assess the facts to deliver a fair and just verdict.

Oregon Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation: In Oregon, there are specific jury instructions provided to guide the jurors in cases involving sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Quid pro quo, which translates to "this for that," refers to a type of sexual harassment where employment benefits or opportunities are conditioned upon the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation serves as a framework for evaluating such cases and determining liability. It outlines the necessary elements that the plaintiff must prove to establish a claim of sex discrimination quid pro quo violation. These elements may include: 1. Employer-Employee Relationship: The plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties involved. 2. Unwelcome Sexual Advances: The plaintiff must establish that the alleged harasser made unwanted sexual advances or engaged in sexual conduct, either explicitly or implicitly. 3. Conditioned Benefits or Opportunities: It must be shown that the harasser made the acceptance of job benefits, promotions, or other favorable treatment contingent upon the plaintiff's compliance with the sexual advances. This could involve threats of adverse employment actions, such as demotion or termination, if the advances were rejected. 4. Knowledge of the Harassment: The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the ongoing sexual harassment or could reasonably have known about it. 5. Tangible Employment Action: The plaintiff may provide evidence of a tangible employment action taken against them, such as being fired, demoted, or denied a promotion, directly resulting from their rejection or acceptance of the sexual advances. Different Types of Oregon Jury Instruction — 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation: While the general framework remains the same, there may be different subtypes of sex discrimination quid pro quo violations. Some of these may include: 1. Single Incident Quid Pro Quo Violation: This refers to cases where there is a clear instance of sexual harassment involving a single explicit or implicit demand in exchange for job benefits or opportunities. 2. Ongoing Quid Pro Quo Violation: These cases involve a pattern of sexual harassment over an extended period, where the harasser consistently conditions employment benefits on the submission to unwelcome sexual advances. 3. Supervisor-Supervisee Quid Pro Quo Violation: In situations where a supervisor abuses their position of authority to exchange job benefits for sexual favors from their subordinate, this subtype of quid pro quo violation may apply. It is crucial for jurors to carefully consider the evidence presented and evaluate it against the specific jury instruction pertaining to the sex discrimination quid pro quo violation they are faced with. Each case will have unique circumstances, and the jury's role is to impartially assess the facts to deliver a fair and just verdict.