You think you’ve solved the problem. You separate the employee from the alleged harasser. You tell him not to contact her—ever. Years pass without incident. Then one day, the same two people cross paths again, and a decision that stops short of firing her, but directly threatens her pay and job security, is enough to keep a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim alive.
TL;DR: A Pennsylvania federal judge let a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim proceed after an employee alleged that a former supervisor—once the subject of a no-contact directive—reached out years later to work with her again. When she refused, she claims he participated in the decision to deny her the institutional support letter she needed to apply for a grant covering about half her salary and lab costs. The court found that if true, this sequence plausibly tied her rejection of unwelcome conduct to a tangible employment action.
📄Read the decision
How a “No-Contact” Deal Came Back Years Later
The plaintiff has worked at a cancer research institute since 2007, earning tenure as an Associate Professor and co-directing a program that brings real-world science into classrooms.
She alleges that in 2014, her then-supervisor began sending her personal messages—about his feelings for her and other women, a poem intended for a former mistress, musings about thunderstorms, even a comment about hitting up ex-girlfriends for donations. She says she told him to stop, but he continued. When she stopped responding, she claims he complained it reminded him of past romantic rejection, pressed for in-person meetings, and even messaged her on Christmas morning.
The complaint states that she reported him. Instead of firing him, the employer allegedly reassigned her to a new supervisor, promised he would have no contact with her and no influence over her job, and instructed him to steer clear.
She claims that years later, in 2021, he became Director—putting her back in his chain of command. In January 2023, after attending her research talk and taking photos, he allegedly emailed her to praise her work and request her help with a grant application. She says she reported this outreach to leadership.
Two months later, she alleges she requested the institutional support letter required to apply for an NIH grant that would fund about half her salary, benefits, and lab costs. She says she was told no—and later learned he made or participated in that decision. Without the letter, she missed the June deadline.
Quid Pro Quo + Tangible Employment Action
While quid pro quo claims typically involve allegations of overt sexual harassment, the key inquiry is whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that she would not have been sexually harassed but for her sex. In plain English: did someone in authority link an employee’s job benefits—or threats to those benefits—to how she responded to unwelcome conduct? It doesn’t have to be “sleep with me or you’re fired.” Any link between refusing unwanted conduct and losing a job benefit can qualify.
A tangible employment action for purposes of a quid pro quo claim means a significant change in employment status—such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. The court made clear this can include denying access to a resource that is essential to the job, particularly when it directly impacts pay, benefits, or continued employment.
Here, the alleged sequence—renewed contact from someone with a prior no-contact restriction, the plaintiff’s refusal, and the denial of an institutional support letter that she needed to apply for funding covering half her salary and lab costs—was enough for the court to let the claim proceed. Even though the denial was later reversed, the court found that losing access when it mattered most could be just as damaging as losing the job itself.
Employer Takeaways
-
Preventive measures aren’t one-and-done.
Whether it’s separating employees, adjusting reporting lines, or limiting decision-making authority, these safeguards need to survive leadership changes and reorganizations. Review them regularly and build them into management onboarding. -
Control over key resources = potential for liability.
Tangible employment actions include more than hiring, firing, or pay changes. If a person with prior harassment allegations controls approvals, funding, or resources critical to the employee’s role, you’re exposing the organization to heightened risk. -
Denying a request can have the same impact as a demotion.
In some roles, access to resources is a job requirement. Denying that access—even once—can cause measurable harm to pay, benefits, or job security. Courts will treat it as an adverse action if the timing and context suggest a retaliatory or discriminatory motive. -
Timing tells a powerful story to judges and juries.
Adverse decisions made soon after an employee refuses unwelcome conduct or makes a complaint will almost always draw suspicion. Even if there’s a legitimate reason, you must be prepared to document it contemporaneously.
The Bottom Line
Harassment cases don’t always end when the policy says they do. An old “fix” can unravel years later if leadership changes, oversight slips, or the wrong person controls the wrong lever of power. This case is a reminder that in harassment prevention, it’s not just what you do in the moment—it’s how you protect the solution over time.