Haw. Civil Jury Instr. 16.34

To prevail on the claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment,

plaintiff(s) must prove both of the following elements:

1. He/she/they was/were subjected to unwelcome [sexual

advances/requests for sexual favors/other verbal

statements or physical conduct of a sexual nature] by

[insert title, position, or name of person(s) who

is/are alleged to have had power to control or dictate

terms or conditions of plaintiff’s(s’) employment];

and

[2. Plaintiff(s) was/were required to submit to [repeat

bracketed conduct from paragraph 1] in order to [avoid

(describe adverse employment action)/receive (describe

job benefit)].

[2. Plaintiff(s) refused to submit to [repeat bracketed

conduct from paragraph 1] and, as a result, [describe

adverse employment action].

PRACTICE NOTE: The language in the first bracketed paragraph

applies where the plaintiff submitted to the sexual requests or

advances. The language in the second bracketed paragraph

applies where the plaintiff’s refusal to submit to the sexual

conduct resulted in an adverse employment action being taken

against, or a job benefit being withheld from, the plaintiff.

Nelson v. University of Hawaii, 97 Hawaiʻi 376, 387, 38 P.3d 95,

106 (2001); Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Jury Instructions-Civil (2001) § 13.6 (as modified).