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:

Second Circuit | Mazzei v. Money Store, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12994 (2d Cir. July 15, 2016)

Seventh Circuit | Half a Loaf: Court Rejects ADA "Safe Harbor" But Approves Pre-Regulations Wellness Program as "Voluntary" The EEOC’s attack on employee wellness programs as unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) that began in 2014 with three lawsuits, and continued with more recent regulations under these laws, has taken another turn. On September 19, 2016, a federal court in Wisconsin denied the EEOC’s summary judgment motion in one of the three cases that directly challenged an employer’s wellness program requiring employees who sought health plan coverage with a wellness component to undergo a medical examination or pay higher premiums. EEOC v. Orion Energy Systems, Inc., Civil Action 1:14:-cv-01019 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 19, 2016)

Texas | Rhymes v. Filter Resources, Inc.

Sixth Circuit | Smith v. LexisNexis Screen Solutions, Inc., __ F. 3d ___, 2016 WL 4761325 (6th Cir. September 13, 2016)

Eleventh Circuit | EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, No. 14-13482 (11th Cir. Sept. 15, 2016)

California | Ogannesian v. ICC Collision Centers, Inc.

South Carolina | Joseph v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

Third Circuit | First Niagara Risk Management, Inc. v. John A. Folino (E.D. Penn. August 11, 2016)

Minnesota | Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. v. Vlamis (Sept. 6, 2016)

Seventh Circuit | Amglo Kemlite Labs., Inc. v. NLRB, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15100 (7th Cir. Aug. 17, 2016)