Which statement best summarizes the ruling on sexual harassment as described by EEOC guidelines and Supreme Court interpretation?

• A. It is illegal for someone to request sexual favors as a condition of employment or promotion and for an employee to experience a hostile or intimidating work environment due to a pattern of offensive sexual teasing, jokes, or obscenity.
• B. An employer is not liable if they do not know that a subordinate requested sex.
• C. A work environment is not deemed hostile by a steady pattern of harassment.
• D. Employers are strictly liable for a hostile environment even if they did nothing.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal under EEOC guidelines and the Supreme Court’s interpretation, covering both quid pro quo situations and hostile environment claims. When someone in a position of authority tries to trade employment benefits for sex, that is illegal. At the same time, a work environment can become unlawful if persistent, unwelcome sexual conduct—such as offensive teasing, jokes, or obscenity—creates a hostile or intimidating atmosphere.

This answer best fits because it correctly combines both facets: the illegality of demanding sexual favors in exchange for advancement and the illegality of a hostile environment produced by ongoing, unwanted sexual conduct. The other statements don’t align with the established understanding. An employer can be liable even if they didn’t know a subordinate asked for sex, especially in many harassment scenarios involving supervisors, and a steady pattern of harassment can indeed render the environment hostile. Liability is not automatic in all cases; there are defenses and nuances depending on the situation, so it isn’t strictly true that employers are liable no matter what or that they’re always off the hook if they didn’t take action.