join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Search Workipedia:  
« Go Back

Sexual Harassment in Pennsylvania

Sexual harassment is unlawful in Pennsylvania.  Section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and has been interpreted to include sexual harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. 43 P.S. § 955(a). Moreover, pursuant to its statutory authority to adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the policies and provisions of the PHRA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission has adopted guidelines on sexual harassment that are very similar to those promulgated by the EEOC.

Under federal law, an action for sexual harassment may be brought under two separate theories: “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment.”

To set forth a case of a hostile work environment, an employee must demonstrate “(1) that she is a member of a protected group; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on sex; and (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of her employment.

To be actionable, the work environment must have been both objectively and subjectively offensive. An objectively offensive environment is one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, examining all of the circumstances, such as the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance, and whether the conduct is so severe or pervasive that it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance.

Sexual harassment is quid pro quo if a tangible employment action follows the employee’s refusals to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands.” An employee making a quid pro quo claim need not prove that the conduct was severe or pervasive because any carried-out threat is itself deemed an actionable change in the terms or conditions of employment. Thus, if the employee proves that a tangible employment action resulted from a refusal to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands, the employment decision is a change in the terms and conditions of employment that is actionable under Title VII.

Lawyer Login: Workipedia • EL Match

Auto-login Show name as online

Forgot your password?I Want To Participate!

Workipedia Navigation

Our Editors:

Most Active Contributors:

How To Contribute


  • Page Views: 0
  • Logged in Attorneys:
  • Total guests:

Ogletree Deakins | California | The Opportunities and Obligations of Venture Capital and Private Equity in the #MeToo Environment (February 01, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Glimmers of Hope? Pair of Recent PAGA Cases Provide Rare Procedural Victories for California Employers (January 31, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | DLSE Publishes Voluntary Template for Required Employer AB 450 Notice (February 11, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | California’s Salary History Ban: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (January 23, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | The ICEman Cometh? Recent War of Words Puts California Employers in the Crosshairs of National Immigration Debate (January 22, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Long-Awaited Housekeeper Injury Prevention Regulations (January 24, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial (January 21, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Hotel Housekeeping Injury Standard – Likely to Go Into Effect Later This Year (January 21, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | California Labor Department Releases Form for Employers Responding to Immigration Agency Inspection (February 12, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | As Marijuana Shops Thrive, California Employers Revisit Drug Policies (January 18, 2018)