Antichristus, a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder, of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a ruler contributing generously to the Catholic Church
Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) is a Latin phrase used in English
to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is
contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases with similar
meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat",
"you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", and "one hand washes the
other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.
Origins
The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, as in this instead of that.
Early usage by English speakers followed the original Latin meaning,
with occurrences in the 1530s where the term referred to substituting
one medicine for another, whether unintentionally or fraudulently. By
the end of the same century, quid pro quo evolved into a more current use to describe equivalent exchanges.
In 1654, the expression quid pro quo was used to generally refer to something done for personal gain or with the expectation of reciprocity in the text The Reign of King Charles: An History Disposed into Annalls, with a somewhat positive connotation. It refers to the covenant with Christ as something "that prove not a nudum pactum, a naked contract, without quid pro quo." Believers in Christ have to do their part in return, namely "foresake the devil and all his works".
Quid pro quo would go on to be used, by English speakers
in legal and diplomatic contexts, as an exchange of equally valued goods
or services and continues to be today.
The Latin phrase corresponding to the usage of quid pro quo in English is do ut des (Latin for "I give, so that you may give"). Other languages continue to use do ut des for this purpose, while quid pro quo (or its equivalent qui pro quo,
as widely used in Italian, French and Spanish) still keeps its original
meaning of something being unwillingly mistaken, or erroneously told or
understood, instead of something else.
Legal meanings
Common law
In common law, quid pro quo
indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for
something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the
transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration:
that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of
value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk,
a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the
customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have
given up something of equal value in return.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the one-sidedness of a contract is covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
and various revisions and amendments to it; a clause can be held void
or the entire contract void if it is deemed unfair (that is to say,
one-sided and not a quid pro quo); however this is a civil law and not a common law matter.
Political donors must be resident in the UK. There are fixed
limits to how much they may donate (£5000 in any single donation), and
it must be recorded in the House of Commons Register of Members' Interests or at the House of Commons Library; the quid pro quo is strictly not allowed, that a donor can by his donation have some personal gain. This is overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There are also prohibitions on donations being given in the six weeks before the election for which it is being campaigned. It is also illegal for donors to support party political broadcasts,
which are tightly regulated, free to air, and scheduled and allotted to
the various parties according to a formula agreed by Parliament and
enacted with the Communications Act 2003.
United States
In the United States, if the exchange appears excessively one sided, courts in some jurisdictions may question whether a quid pro quo did actually exist and the contract may be held void.
In cases of "Quid Pro Quo" business contracts, the term takes on a
negative connotation because major corporations may cross ethical
boundaries in order to enter into these very valuable, mutually
beneficial, agreements with other major big businesses. In these deals,
large sums of money are often at play and can consequently lead to
promises of exclusive partnerships indefinitely or promises of
distortion of economic reports, for example.
In the U.S., lobbyists
are legally entitled to support candidates that hold positions with
which the donors agree, or which will benefit the donors. Such conduct
becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term quid pro quo denotes such an exchange.
Sexual harassment
In United States labor law, workplace sexual harassment can take two forms; either "Quid pro quo" harassment or hostile work environment harassment.
"Quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex,
sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a
condition of their employment. Only supervisors who have the authority
to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, etc.),
can commit "Quid pro quo" harassment. The supervising harasser must have "immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.”
The power dynamic between a supervisor and subordinate/job candidate
is such that a supervisor could use their position of authority to
extract sexual relations based on the subordinate/job candidate's need
for employment. Co-workers and non-decision making supervisors cannot
engage in "Quid pro quo" harassment with other employees, but an
employer could potentially be liable for the behavior of these employees
under a hostile work environment claim. The harassing employee's
status as a supervisor is significant because if the individual is found
to be a supervisor then the employing company can be held vicariously
liable for the actions of that supervisor. Under Agency law,
the employer is held responsible for the actions of the supervisor
because they were in a position of power within the company at the time
of the harassment.
To establish a prima facie
case of "Quid pro quo" harassment, the plaintiff must prove that they
were subjected to "unwelcome sexual conduct", that submission to such
conduct was explicitly or implicitly a term of their employment, and
submission to or rejection of this conduct was used as a basis for an
employment decision, as follows:
- Unwelcome Sexual Conduct: A court will look at the employee's conduct to determine whether the supervisor's sexual advances were unwelcome. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Court opined that voluntary sex between an employee and supervisor does not establish proof that a supervisor's sexual advances were welcome. The Court also stated that evidence of the subordinate employee's provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies can be introduced as evidence if relevant.
- Term of Employment: A term or condition of employment means that the subordinate/job candidate must acquiesce to the sexual advances of the supervisor in order to maintain/be hired for the job. In essence, the sexual harassment becomes a part of their job. For example, a supervisor promises an employee a raise if she/he goes out on a date with the supervisor, or tells an employee he/she will be fired if the employee doesn't sleep with him/her.
- Tangible Employment Action: A tangible employment action must take place as a result of the employee's submission or refusal of supervisor's advances. In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Court stated that tangible employment action amounted to “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.” It is important to note that only supervisors can make tangible employment actions, since they have the company's authority to do so. The Court also held that unfulfilled threats by a supervisor of an adverse employment decision are not sufficient to establish a "Quid pro quo," but were relevant for the purposes of a Hostile work environment claim. Additionally, The Supreme Court has held that Constructive dismissal can count as a tangible employment action (thus allowing a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim) if the actions taken by a supervisor created a situation where a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign."
Once the plaintiff has established these three factors, the employer
can not assert an affirmative defense (such as the employer had a sexual
harassment policy in place to prevent and properly respond to issues of
sexual harassment), but can only dispute whether the unwelcome conduct
did not in fact take place, the employee was not a supervisor, and that
there was no tangible employment action involved.
Although these terms are popular among lawyers and scholars, neither "hostile work environment" nor "quid pro quo" are found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race,
sex, color, national origin, and religion. The Supreme Court noted in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
that these terms are useful in differentiating between cases where
threats of harassment are "carried out and those where they are not or
absent altogether," but otherwise these terms serve a limited purpose.
Therefore, it is important to remember that sexual harassment can take
place by a supervisor, and an employer can be potentially liable, even
if that supervisor's behavior does not fall within the criteria of a
"Quid pro quo" harassment claim.
Donald Trump impeachment inquiry
Quid pro quo has been frequently mentioned during the impeachment inquiry into U.S. president Donald Trump, in reference to the charge that his request for an investigation of Hunter Biden was a precondition for the delivery of congressionally authorized military aid during a call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Other meanings
Quid pro quo
may sometimes be used to define a misunderstanding or blunder made by
the substituting of one thing for another. The Oxford English Dictionary
describes this as "now rare". The Vocabolario Treccani (an authoritative dictionary published by the Encyclopedia Treccani),
under the entry "qui pro quo", states that the latter expression
probably derives from the Latin used in late medieval pharmaceutical
compilations.
This can be clearly seen from the work appearing precisely under this
title, "Tractatus quid pro quo," (Treatise on what substitutes for what)
in the medical collection headed up by Mesue cum expositione Mondini super Canones universales...
(Venice: per Joannem & Gregorium de gregorijs fratres, 1497),
folios 334r-335r. Some examples of what could be used in place of what
in this list are: "Pro uva passa dactili" (in place of raisins, [use]
dates); "Pro mirto sumac" (in place of myrtle, [use] sumac); "Pro
fenugreco semen lini" (in place of fenugreek, [use] flaxseed), etc. This
list was an essential resource in the medieval apothecary, especially
for occasions when certain essential medicinal substances were not
available.
Satirist Ambrose Bierce defined political influence as "a visionary quo given in exchange for a substantial quid", making a pun on quid as a form of currency.
Quid is slang for pounds, the British currency, originating on this expression as in: if you want the quo you'll need to give them some quid, which explains the plural without s, as in I gave them five hundred quid.
