A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

The 2 types of sexual harassment claims

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Despite increased attention and action against sexual harassment in recent years, it remains a serious problem in many workplaces. Many observers see systemic sexual harassment as a form of control, an attempt by management to prevent women from advancing to workplace equality.

Perhaps for this reason, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly defines sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. Resisting inappropriate jokes, requests for sexual favors and other forms of harassment can lead to victims getting lesser job assignments, being denied promotions and even being outright fired.

There are actually two types of sexual harassment, each of which can be a distinct claim in court. One is known as “quid pro quo” harassment. This type of sexual harassment involves a supervisor or other authority figure at work requesting sex or a sexual relationship in exchange for something. The harasser may offer benefits, like a raise or promotion, or threaten the victim with termination or other punishment.

The other type of sexual harassment claim is one alleging a hostile work environment. Being forced to witness demeaning or sexual jokes, threats or visual material can make your job untenable. Generally, to prevail on a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must show that the harassment was so pervasive that it creates an intimidating and offensive work environment.

Whatever the form sexual harassment takes, victims of either gender should not allow it to cause them distress or ruin their career. A discussion with an attorney experienced in sexual harassment law can help victims understand their options.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.