TYLER PERRY IS ACCUSED OF QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL ASSAULT: The full gist & how to identify Quid Pro Quo SA

Image credit: BollywoodShaadis.

Derek Dixon accused Tyler Perry of of sexual assault, particularly what is known as Quid Pro Quo Sexual assault (see full explanation about it) and sued for $260 million!

According to Dixon, as reported by BBC, he and Tyler met in 2019 where Tyler showed interest in helping him with his career in Hollywood, until things took a different turn and Tyler began making sexual overtures at him which he rejected.

Tyler have him a role in his series the Oval & Ruthless and then told him that his character Dale would be killed off in the series if Dixon did not 'make him (Tyler) happy'. He also said he could get Dixon his own TV show if he complied. 

He accused the Hollywood Exec of "coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic" while he was acting on The Oval and Ruthless which include pinning him to a wall and inappropriately groping him.

What you should know about Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment.

Over the years, I have heard people erroneously described quid pro quo Sexual Assault (SA) as tit for that.

In fact, I first heard it in an old Nollywood movie where the lecturer said " If you want an A, give me your B"

This is often erroneously attributed to transactional sex because you give something (usually sexual favours) in exchange for something. Others even claim that it is not sexual assault because you get to choose to decline or not to decline. Many have argued that "she/he was not forced". We saw this argument trailed the #metoo movement when actresses detailed their harrowing experiences in the hands of Hollywood Execs. People claimed they 'consented' to it because they could have just said no.

The point being made is, even without Tyler touching him physically, it is sexual assault and this article seeks to make some point clear. Quid pro quo SA is NOT:

✖️ Choice 

✖️ Transactional sex.

So what then is quid pro quo SA and why is it termed a form of sexual Harassment?

Quid Pro Quo is Latin word for Something for Something. Basically, an exchange or a transaction. 

Emphasis is on giving something in exchange for something, however, people are usually silent about what the other party stands to lose if they fail to comply.

For instance, if I walk into ShopRite and later decide not to buy anything, I can choose to walk out, I don't lose anything, ShopRite also do not lose anything, no sanction is imposed. THIS IS CHOICE. But if ShopRite ceases my ATM card and say I must buy something, can we still call it choice or transaction?

You see, the consequence that follows changes the nature of what happened. It moves it from mere transaction to Harassment.

Unlike ordinary business transaction, there are certain features that make quid pro quo a form of Sexual assault and these are:

1. Unequal bargaining power: Where one person holds considerable power over the other and UNFAIRLY uses the power to his advantage, to the detriment of the other and their right to choose to or not to, then that begins to enter the realm of SA. For example a CEO & a janitor at his establishment, lecturer & student, a minor & an adult, a therapist/doctor & a patient, a Hollywood executive & an upcoming actress/ actor. (the scenarios are not limited to this. It is evident in all works of life)

Usually, the other person is I a vulnerable position and where vulnerability is used to gain unfair advantage, then the bargaining power is unequal.

The question of bargaining power is very crucial in determining how equitable an interaction is. However, where there is fear of sanction if the other chooses to say no, then it is no longer a mere exchange, it becomes sexual assault. 

2. Merit: Sex is not a workplace currency. Competency and merit should ordinarily determine whether or not a worker or a  student climb up the rank. 

Where a person with considerable power changes work dynamics and begins to demand for sex in exchange for promotion, career advancement, job, grades etc, then it becomes SA.

3. Abuse of authority & undue influence: Taking advantage of unequal bargaining power to arm-strong someone else into sex is ABUSE OF AUTHORITY. 

Undue influence vitiates consent. It means even if the person says yes by reason of the influence you exerted on them, that yes has being vitiated by law.

4. Lack of choice: Choice has basic elements recognised by law. For there to be said to be choice, there must be :

✅ Full and Informed consent (includes benefits & risk)

✅ Without fear of sanction 

✅ Voluntary: Without pressure, coercion, blackmail, undue influence or other elements that vitiates consent. 

✅ Capacity: The person must not be under any form of legal disability. For instance, minors & persons of unsound mind are under legal disability, even if they say yes, the law has said no on their behalf.

So even when a person says yes, and any of these elements are absent, such a consent is legally vitiated!

5. One sided transactional: This is different from transactional sex where the very object of the act itself is sex. However, even in transactional, where you go overboard more than the demands of the agreement, it can become SA. 

Now, assuming Derek himself approached Tyler and offered sex in exchange for role, in my opinion, it is not sexual assault (except in instances of legal disability), however, it would be abuse of authority on the path of Tyler because sex should not be a workplace currency. It's like saying that a minor 'seduced' you. As an adult, it's your duty to say no. 

The recent case of the CEO of Astronomer and the HR of his company highlights this. Even when it is consensual without any force, it can still be considered inappropriate and abuse of authority.

Note that circumstances changes meaning of things, every matter is considered on a case by case basis. 

6. Fear of sanction:  Fear of sanction: This is the key ingredient- fear of sanction. This is what determines whether it is a choice or an assault.

Sanction here could mean physical assault, loss of earnings, loss of promotion, being transferred to another or a lower department for saying no, loss of career advancement and opportunities, spreading rumours about you, blackmail, isolation, instigating other colleagues against you, creating toxic work environment, termination of employment, hostility, retaliation, carry over in school etc. Any form of disadvantages whatsoever a person faces by reason of their choice to say NO amounts to sanction. 

Now here is something to note about sanctions, listen attentively:-

The sanction being referred to here is NOT the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the action (Remember, the emphasis here is on natural).

With or without quid pro quo, actions generally attracts consequences. In better words, the principle of cause and effect applies to every actions we make.

However, in quid pro quo SA, the sanction is not a natural consequence of the actions, rather, it is man made, it is imposed by the person with higher bargaining power. 

For example:

EX 1: I went to Kilimanjaro to buy dinner. They stated their price but I do not have sufficient money to purchase so I decided not to buy. I said No and walked away. Now, the natural consequence of saying no is that, I will sleep hungry without dinner. That hunger is a natural consequence of my decision/ action.

EX 2: (Same scenario), I heard the price and said no. The moment I said no, the server began ignoring me and when I asked for my ATM card, she said "what is this beggar even doing here wasting my precious time since you know you can't afford it?". 

Everybody turns around and looked at me. Then the server told the security man "Take this hungry thief out of here before he steals something" and everyone laughed. They dragged me out. In the process, my clothes tore, causing further embarassment. They threw me out of the building, I fell and scratched my knee.

Now, the embarassment I suffered is NOT a natural consequences of choosing not to buy, it is a man imposed sanction which is wrong because I have the HUMAN RIGHT to choose to or not to patronise them.

The way the seller treated me or responded to my decision not to buy determines whether it is a mere transaction or an assault.

I do not owe them a legal obligation to say YES. I have the right to say NO, treating a person as sub human and imposing sanctions for exercising that right to say no only derogates from my well guaranteed fundamental human right.

BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WITHOUT FEAR OF SANCTION. 

Any sanction or consequence that should flow from my action should be NATURAL CONSEQUENCES not MAN-IMPOSED CONSEQUENCES. Remember that sanction or consequences means any form of disadvantages suffered by reason of choosing not to.

THe only person illegally empowered to impose man made consequences is THE LAW or anyone empowered by law to do so. For instance, if I break traffic laws, I get a fine or spend some days in prison. This is because OBEYING TRAFFIC LAWS IS NOT A CHOICE, IT IS LEGAL MANDATED. Sanctions are only applied where there is a duty imposed on you and you break that duty.

Now, the question is:- Do your owe your boss a legal duty to say yes to sex?

If the answer is no, why then is he imposing sanction?

Who gave him the right or authority to impose sanction on you for saying no?

Is receiving a yes from you his right?

What law did you break by saying no?

Once again, what gave him the right to impose sanctions for non compliance???

when a boss, lecturer or any person in place of authority causes you to suffer sanction for EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO SAY NO, he is saying that you don't have a right to choose,  rather, you have mandate to say yes to him and by saying no, you deserve to be punished for breaking that mandate. The question is, would you still consider this a choice? 

It is easy to say "He/she was not forced. He could have turned down the offer", however, people should not be made to choose between means of livelihood and sex. Like I said earlier, sex is not a workplace currency, if a person in place of authority changed that work dynamics for his personal gain, go the detriment of others, it becomes SA 

"Even if Derek had said yes and gotten a TV show of its own, that doesn't make it any less of a sexual assault because all the elements of consent are missing notwithstanding that they enjoyed some benefits".

The litmus test for identifying quid pro quo SA.

Whenever you're in doubt whether or not what you're facing is QUID PRO QUO SA, my litmus test is, ask yourself these two questions:-

1. Do I owe this person a duty to say yes to that particular demand?

2. Is the consequence I am facing a natural consequence of my choice or is it man-made consequences?

If the answer to both questions is NO, then it is most likely, quid pro quo Sexual assault.

Pls note that in the first test, you have to streamline the duty to the very specific demand. For instance, you owe your boss who paid your salary a duty to come to work and work. So the question should not be "Do I owe him a duty", it should be "Do I owe him duty to say yes to sex (or whatever is his demands?). That very specific request he/she made, do you owe a duty?

However, there are situations where the law implies duty to have sex as in the case of marriage. Like the legal maxim goes There is an exception to every rule. So does this means SA or rape cannot occur in marriage?

The answer is no and here is why?

The law implies a duty to not deny your spouse consortium. Consortium means a bundle of right and duties spouses owe to each other. For example, a husband owes a wife duty to provide, cohabition, duty to consummate the marriage, have sex etc).

However..., PLS NOTE that inability to provide sex does not automatically means you are in breach of your duty of consortium. Consortium can only be said to be denied where it is for such extended period of time, such that,  it can reasonably be interpreted to mean INTENTIONAL DEPRIVATION. It's the same way a husband would not be said to have deprived his wife of cohabition when he goes for a 2 months business trip, despite owing her cohabition. It must be an intentional deprivation for an extended or unreasonable period of time.

So if I'm tired from work and say no to my husband, that does not mean I am in breach of my duty because, despite the 'reduced sense of personhood or individuality in marriage', our laws still treat husbands and wives as two separate individual. Two shall become one only applies to religion. 

I'm stating this because in instances of marital rape or where a spouse starts depriving the other of finances, giving you silent treatment for saying no,. If you ask yourself  "Do I owe this person a duty to say yes to that particular demand?" The answer will likely come back as a yes.

So remember that even within marriage, despite the duty to not deprive consortium, the law still recognises you as a separate person. This is why SOME form of consortium like cohabition, consummation (first sex after marriage), and sex are LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE RIGHTS. This means even if a court orders the wife to resume cohabition, if she refuses, the court cannot cite her for Contempt or send her to jail. It is UNENFORCEABLE. That means, the law still recognises your individual rights that touches on your body!

And a husband choosing to hit his wife, deprive family of finances and food, deciding to look outside, giving cold shoulders, or any other actions designed as a punishment for saying no can be classified as quid pro quo SA because he is denying her of her autonomy and viewing her body as existing solely for his pleasure. (Although Nigeria does not legally recognised marital rape, we hope it catches up with other country's law and recognise it as a punishable crime).

The very first step to protecting yourself is arming yourself with the right information.

Do have a pleasant day!

Like, share, comment if you've ever faced or know someone who has faced quid pro quo SA. 

                                       - Dogo Joy Njeb Esq.

DOGO JOY NJEB Esq he is a practicing lawyer and founder of SheResonance Awareness. She has worked with Legal Aid Council Nigeria and is a member of Federation of Female lawyers on Nigeria where she renders pro bono services to indigent persons. She is a private practitioner, a writer and an aspiring author. Contact her on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, tiktok, x, or send a mail to sheresonance@gmail.com

Related post: 

QUID PRO QUO & RETALIATION SEXUAL HARASSMENT: What you should know about it.

THIRD PARTY HARASSMENT: All You Need To Know About It